Definitely work from CVS. There's been a lot of changes since 1.2.8, to
the point that a patch against 1.2.8 probably wouldn't apply to CVS.
Re: the long development cycle, there are a couple of things causing it.
First, there's a (substantial) effort to support unicode better in
rdiff-backup, but it's stalled right now. Also, I haven't heard from
Andrew personally for a very long time; I've got a number of features
waiting to be reviewed.
Re: a SCM, we're currently planning to move to SVN, but haven't gotten
there yet. The original plan was to move after 1.3.0 was released, but
that obviously has taken a while to happen.
I've been using CVS (with numerous patches) in a production environment
for some time, but there are still changes related to unicode handling
that need to be done before it's ready for general use. If you're
developing though, I'd highly recommend that you use it - if you run
into bugs, I'll be happy to help you fix them.
Thanks,
JoshN
Daniel Miller wrote:
Hi,
I'm planning on implementing some new features in rdiff-backup.
Specifically, I'm going to attempt to implement the features I was
asking for a while ago in a thread with the subject "*Verify times
increasing*" (that is, real full-repository verification).
I'd like to know which version of rdiff-backup to implement these new
features against. Should I develop them against the stable (1.2.8) or
should I develop them against the development version in CVS? (aside:
are we really still using CVS??? ever heard of git?)
I'm going to use the features I implement in a production environment,
so I need whatever I end up with to be stable. Which brings up the
question: How stable is the development branch? Is it stable enough to
use in a production environment?
Thanks,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
rdiff-backup-users mailing list at [email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users
Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
