Le 2016-07-27 à 20:47, Samir Nassar a écrit :
> Should it be understood that GnuPG Modern is similar to a development
> branch?
It's more stable than that, WK's words from a few months ago were "it is
not just stable, but modern! Go and use it."
If it's any indication, gnupg2 in Debian testing i
Disclaimer: this is how I understand it. I'm just a bystander looking
on, I might have misunderstood.
On 27/07/16 14:39, Dashamir Hoxha wrote:
> IMHO, a branch that gets new features is not stable. Stable is a branch
> that gets only bug fixes.
Precisely, I think this is where the questions arise
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Marcos Alano
wrote:
> IMHO, I don't think so. A dev branch is very unstable and modern branch is
> considerably stable but receive a lot of new features. Stable is very
> stable for people who wants a long term stable version.
>
IMHO, a branch that gets new featur
Hi Samir,
IMHO, I don't think so. A dev branch is very unstable and modern branch is
considerably stable but receive a lot of new features. Stable is very
stable for people who wants a long term stable version.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 08:23 Samir Nassar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The GnuPG project descr
Hello,
The GnuPG project describes the three branches of GnuPG as Modern
(2.1.x), Stable (2.0.x), and Classic (1.4.x).
Should it be understood that GnuPG Modern is similar to a development
branch?
--
Samir Nassar
web:samirnassar.com
email: sa...@samirnassar.com
PGP:pgp.samirnassar.com
