On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:37:46PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > > Arturo Borrero Gonzalez <arturo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 10/9/23 12:44, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > > > - Another possibility is to make a nftables 1.0.6.1 or 1.0.6a -stable > > > > > > release from netfilter.org. netfilter.org did not follow this procedure > > > > > > very often (a few cases in the past in iptables IIRC). > > > > > > > > > > Given the amount of patches, this would be the preferred method from the > > > > > Debian point of view. > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.6.1 as version should be fine. > > > > > > Only one thing: I just wonder if this new 4 numbers scheme might > > > create confusion, as there will be release with 3 numbers and -stable > > > releases with 4 numbers. > > > > An upcoming 1.0.9 might be a good chance to switch upstream numbering > > scheme: Depending on whether it is deemed acceptable to reorder patches > > in public git history, one could make 1.0.9 contain only the fixes since > > 1.0.8 and release a 1.1.0 containing what remains. And from then on > > collect just fixes to 1.1.0 into 1.1.N and new features into 1.2.0. > > > > Assuming that downstream does its own "stable releases" already, > > skipping a 1.0.6.1 or 0.9.8.1 should be OK. Was a 0.9.10, being > > 0.9-stable, acceptable or are there too many new features between 0.9.8 > > and 0.9.9? > > I made a bit of digging in the history, and we already pulled the 4 > digits handle in the past for iptables. > > https://www.netfilter.org/projects/iptables/files/changes-iptables-1.4.19.1.txt Appending another "dot digit" is not uncommon in other projects, so I guess most parsers should get it right. > As for 0.9.10, it would skip 0.9.9: I did not mean for 0.9.10 to be 0.9.8 + fixes, but 0.9.9 + only fixes. So not skip, but include. > $ git log --oneline v0.9.8..v0.9.9 | wc -l > 150 Skimming the list, I think there's not too much in there which is not a fix. While there are only 20 commits having a Fixes: tag, there's the parser keyword scoping and some cache rework also. In other words, requiring downstream to update to 0.9.9 from 0.9.8 in order to benefit from upstream's blessed 0.9-stable release might be acceptable. > We can start with a few -stable branches, namely 0.9.8.y and 1.0.6.y > as it has been suggested, I am going to push patches to the branches, > I will keep you posted. Fine with me, too. Cheers, Phil
