On Sun, 2013-12-08 at 02:34 +0000, Edward Ned Harvey (rdiff-backup) wrote: > > 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.
The only addition to that I'd add would be that if a large group of people have been running it for a number of years, you may also consider making it stable. However, if hardly anyone has run it, then it would still be a dev version. > 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." > I thought of going to 1.4.0 really to indicate additional work now going on. Of course we would then need to continue on with that work. > > 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... > Looking at the Fedora RPM there seem to be two patches included. I don't know how big or small they are, but they exist. I know Joe Steele mentioned a patch attached to a bug report he sent in a few years ago. There may be a few more around. Regards Frank _______________________________________________ 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
