Prepping for a new release (2.5.8? 2.6.0?)

jw schultz jw at
Tue Dec 16 05:03:28 EST 2003

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:57:05AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:32:07PM -0600, John Van Essen wrote:
> > would you care to take the bull by the horns and produce a release
> > candidate for 2.5.8 so that the rsync enthusiasts on the rsync mailing
> > list can give it a whirl prior to an official release (hopefully by
> > Christmas)?
> I was just about to say something about this on the list, so I'll do it
> in reply to your question:
> Yes, I'd like to get the CVS version finished up and a new release made.
> I'm currently reviewing a few old emails I had marked, and checking in
> some minor changes.
> Some questions for everyone:
>  - What issues remain that need to be worked out before a new release?
>    For instance, we should probably organize a security audit of the
>    code changes for the new version (some auditing was done recently,
>    but I'm not sure exactly how much).
>  - What should we call the new version?  I'm leaning towards 2.6.0
>    because of the new features (such as --files-from) and the various
>    large changes (such as better check-summing, fixed include/exclude
>    matching, etc.), but I could be talked into 2.5.8.
> If the remaining issues are small, I'll create a test release tarball in
> the next day or so, which will allow those adverse to CVS to help out in
> the pre-release testing.

I'm leaning more towards 2.6.0 now given the number and
scope of enhancements already in the code.  The protocol
bump doesn't merit a version bump (2.x.0) because it is
strictly internal but the improved wildmatch, --files-from
and better handling of large files together probably merit
being called more than a "bug fix" release.  The tool has
been substantially improved in the last year and a bump will
also draw attention to other substantive enhancements
between 2.5.0 and 2.5.6 that people are not yet using.

The new wildmatch stuff should probably get a mild caution
in the release notes.

I wish we had a better handle on the cygwin hang and
craigb-perf but i don't want to slow things down.
CVS is solid on *x now. 

The one thing i really would have liked to have seen in a
version bump would have been changing the default remote
shell to ssh instead of rsh/remsh.  Both to discourage use
of rsh and to eliminate the "rsh: access denied" or "rsh:
command not found" errors that newbees keep hitting.  Such a
change needs the strong demarkation of a version bump.  But
i don't want to slow the release and there hasn't been any
discussion on the subject since i suggested it.

	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw at

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

More information about the rsync mailing list