> From: rdiff-backup-users-bounces+rdiff- > [email protected] [mailto:rdiff-backup-users- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank > Crawford > > Firstly, what version of rdiff-backup do most people use? There is the > stable 1.2.8 and unstable 1.3.3, but both date back to 2009. From what > I can see most distributions use the stable version, so has anyone > extensively tested the 1.3.3 release, and is it really stable enough to > promote to say 1.4?
Well, as you said, the version currently considered stable is 1.2.8. The 1.3.x releases, back when Andrew was working on it... As far as I can tell, the milestone was more symbolic than anything, but nobody's run the regressions in a very long time, and I have to presume they didn't call it stable because there were some features in development, or regressions that weren't passing... In order to call any particular rev "stable" I think we'll agree some substantive unit testing must pass. Which implies figuring out how to run the tests. And writing tests to test previously untested (or un-passed) features. I certainly have no deep conviction for a new release to be called 1.3.4 vs 1.4.0. Given the lapse in development, it might make sense to go to 1.4.0, but ultimately I think it depends on the work that's taking place. I think 1.3.4 implies testing & bugfix for existing features. I think 1.4.0 implies new features. And as soon as either one passes what we generally consider a solid regression sequence, we can call it "stable." > Secondly, a couple of people have mentioned their own private patches. > Are these collected together anywhere, and if not, should we do that? > We may even be able to agree to merge them into the mainline. I don't really know anything about that... _______________________________________________ rdiff-backup-users mailing list at [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
