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

[Weedy]

On 18 Apr 2014 05:27, "Olaf Westrik" <weizen_42 at ipcop-forum.de> wrote:
>
> 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.

I was about to post a similar comment.
I don't see a point in splitting off stable branches constantly. But point
releases as needed if regressions are found sound about right.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20140420/ecd371ed/attachment.html>