On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Leonard Isham wrote: > On 9/8/05, James Yonan <j...@yonan.net> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Leonard Isham wrote: > > > > > On 9/8/05, James Yonan <j...@yonan.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > OpenVPN Addressing Topology > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Merging Schedule > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > > > With sufficient testing, this code will be a candidate for inclusion in > > > > 2.1 or higher, and will be applicable to the 2.0.x branch via manual > > > > merging. While this patch is not huge, it's deep enough that I don't > > > > plan > > > > on merging it in 2.0.x anytime soon. > > > > > > > > > > I know that I'm putting the cart in front of the horse, but... > > > > > > (BTW I couldn't find this on the web site either searchong for > > > timeline and roadmap.) > > > > > > When will 2.1 development start/become publically available? This is > > > a feature that I would love to impliment, but the more the current > > > implimentation grows the harder it gets to change. > > > > Probably a few months at least, though some of the new features, such as > > the topology directive can be used right now by patching to the 2.0.x > > branch. > > > > The 2.x wishlist is already becoming quite large: > > > > http://openvpn.net/wiki/OpenVPN_2.x_wishlist > > > > While a lot of these items are small patches, the "big-ticket" items I'm > > focussing on for 2.1 include: > > > > * topology directive > > * groups (discussed previously on the list) > > * support the ability for one OpenVPN daemon to handle > > client connections on multiple TCP or UDP ports > > simultaneously. > > * improved IPv6 support > > > > I'd like to wait until we have these three in the bag before starting a > > 2.1 beta series. > > > > Please bear with a network geek's rambling for a minute. > > 1. There is a windows install available.
Yes. > 2. the tar file can become an RPM with RPMBuild, correct? Yes. > I'd have to deal with: > > 1. Disabling openvpn updates via yum. > 2. This is a branch that will not be "merged" back in until 2.1 beta. > 3. 2.0.3 or other updates will not include this unless I figure out > how to "merge/diff" the patch in, and that may break it. > > I to go with it, but not being a developer fear that not being able to > merge patches and even complie for windows... I plan to treat the "TO" (topology-supporting) branch as a beta series until the 2.1 beta series formally begins -- that means it will be updated, changes from the 2.0.x branch will get merged in, and when I make releases, there will always be a .tar.gz, .zip, and Windows installer .exe. James
