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

Green, Paul Paul.Green at
Wed Jan 29 23:23:24 EST 2003

Martin Pool [mailto:mbp at] wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2003, "Green, Paul" <Paul.Green at> wrote:
> > 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.
> I agree that this would be a good approach if and only if there is
> energy to do lots of development in the head branch.  What do you have
> in mind?

(I've seen the replies from JW, Wayne, Craig, and Donovan, and just in those
letters I see enough development activity to suggest to me that splitting is
a good thing...)

I'm working on a fix that will solve the "temp file name is 10 characters
longer than the original file name" problem.  The trick is coding this in a
way that is POSIX-compliant and able to deal with simultaneous use of
multiple file systems that might have different max lengths.


More information about the rsync mailing list