Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2009-06-25 19:08, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On 2009-06-10 12:19:59, Patrick wrote: >>> On Wednesday 2009-06-10 14:16, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>>> Git is not as castrated as Hg when it comes to branches, so why not >>>> make a "stable" branch that is then regularly merged into master? :) >>> I don't see why that would currently be necessary. We're talking >>> about a few days, and in fact I'd rather have people test the >>> current code before the release instead of hacking on new things :) >> Yeah but in general? The - judging from their version numbers - >> x.y.z.S stable versions like 1.4.3.1 used to receive lots of new >> features because there is just master, in which case it should >> have been the new 1.4.4 already. >> So either z is bumped more often and S-versions will not >> be released, or S only receives fixes, necessiting a separate branch. >> Objections? > > It would be cool to get an answer here so I know how to twingle > patchbranches that I'd like to submit. Well, I don't object to having a stable branch when we actually do need to release pure bug-fix versions. But I'd say those can be created on demand. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
