[Dnsmasq-discuss] Stable releases v. development releases.

[Olaf Westrik]

On 2014-04-17 23:14, Simon Kelley wrote:
> Thus far, dnsmasq has not maintained separate stable and development
> branches. One reason for this is that there's been a pretty strong
> policy of backwards-compatibility, so the penalty for upgrading to the
> latest release is low: we've almost certainly not broken your config, or
> changed behaviour.

May I add: you have done that exceptionally well.


> I'm interested in opinions for and against the status-quo or a new
> stable/devel split.

A full split would mean extra work for you and probably more users 
sticking to some stable branch for a long time. For dnsmasq I do not 
think it is worth the effort.

If at some point during development, important fixes are necessary, it 
is probably more convenient to open something like a temporary stable 
branch with the sole purpose of applying fixes on top of the latest 
released version.

OTOH if you were to give out a notice saying: here is something 
critically important, please apply GIT commit xyz to fix it, that would 
work just as well for our use case.


Olaf