On sob, 2015-07-18 at 23:17 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015/07/18 17:16, Brad Smith wrote: > > On 07/18/15 17:04, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > > > viq <vic...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > Maybe it would make sense then to have both 0.6 and 0.7 in > > > > > > the tree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 lines up from that.. > > > > > > > > > > The current stable release is 0.6.26, released May 6, 2015. > > > > > > > > Yes, and right below that it says: > > > > The 0.6 series is in the process of being deprecated and the > > > > 0.6.26 > > > > release is the last release of the series that will receive new > > > > additions or enhancements. > > > > > > > > 0.6 is becoming deprecated. 0.6 doesn't support a backend I'd > > > > like to > > > > use, 0.7 does. We have in ports postfix stable and snapshot. > > > > Maybe it > > > > would make sense to have the same for duplicity then? > > > > > > If some people really need the devel version I don't see a reason > > > not to > > > do it. > > > > The rule of thumb we use for the ports tree is use releases and > > stable ones > > at that. That is the reason 99%+ of the ports tree use such > > releases. > > Supplying multiple versions of a port which is a dependency of other > ports adds some problems, it's not too bad here because it's a rundep > only, but deja-dup uses this, so that would want to be handled one > way or another. > > Anyone know upstream's timescale on naming 0.7 stable? >
Doesn't seem they know yet - https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/dupl icity-talk/2015-08/msg00038.html -- viq <vic...@gmail.com>
