Proposal that we now create two branches - 2_5 and head

[Green, Paul]

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.