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

Green, Paul Paul.Green at
Wed Jan 29 23:26:19 EST 2003

jw schultz [mailto:jw at] wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1100, Martin Pool 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?
> And if such development rendered the code sufficiently
> unstable that we couldn't safely release a new version for
> security patches, if needed.

Hold on a minute.  One of the major points in favor of splitting the tree is
so that we will have a stable version in which we can apply security
patches.  Do you disagree, or am I completely misunderstanding you here?

Paul Green, Senior Technical Consultant, Stratus Computer, Inc.
Voice: +1 978-461-7557; FAX: +1 978-461-3610; Video on request.
Speaking from Stratus not for Stratus

More information about the rsync mailing list