Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Implementing new features

[Josh Nisly]

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