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

[Donovan Baarda]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 07:40, Green, Paul wrote:
> jw schultz [mailto:jw at pegasys.ws] wrote:
> 
> [general discussion of forthcoming patches removed]
> 
> > All well and good.  But the question before this thread is
> > are the changes big and disruptive enough to make a second
> > branch for the event of a security or other critical bug.
> 
> Agreed.
[...]

After reading arguments, is support the "delay the branch till it
absolutely must happen" approach... ie don't branch until a bugfix needs
to go in to a "stable" version and HEAD is way too "unstable" to be
released with the fix as the new "stable".

> Quite true.  But I'd like to make the point that I think it is worth making
> the decision to split now.  Having two branches will change attitudes.  And
> I think with as large a community of users as rsync clearly has, it is worth
> changing attitudes.  Having a production branch will remind us that we have
[...]

Actually, a bigger "attitude" issue for me is having a separate
rsync-devel and rsync-user lists. I have almost unsubscribed many times
because of the numerous newbie user questions; I'm only interested in
the devel stuff. I'm sure there are many users who have unsubscribed
because of the numerous long technical posts.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ABO: finger abo at minkirri.apana.org.au for more info, including pgp key
----------------------------------------------------------------------