I'd like to suggest that this is now a great time to create two separate cvs branches for the rsync product. One, which I'll tentatively call 2_5, would hold the version of the code that has been released to the world as 2.5.6. The other, which I'll tentatively call head, would hold the development activity leading up to the next field release. I'm not bound to these names, but I picked ones that are parallel to the names used in the samba tree, for simplicity and ease of communication.
I won't go into a long involved explanation, because I think most people understand the tradeoffs. Briefly, I see the major benefit as giving us the ability to send out important bug fixes or security fixes to users of 2.5.6 without exposing them to experimental or lightly tested development activities. I think splitting the branches will also let us be a little more experimental in the development branch, at least until we get near the next release phase, because we'll always have the field release in which to make crucial bug fixes available quickly. It is a little more work for the maintainers, but I think the benefits far outweigh the costs. We can minimize the extra work by minimizing the changes to the released version. And if we can get agreement to do it, now is the best time, when there has just been a release. Comments? Thanks PG -- Paul Green, Senior Technical Consultant, Stratus Computer, Inc. Voice: +1 978-461-7557; FAX: +1 978-461-3610; Video on request. -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
