[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] What is the current rdiff-backup version?
From: |
Edward Ned Harvey (rdiff-backup) |
Subject: |
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] What is the current rdiff-backup version? |
Date: |
Sun, 8 Dec 2013 02:34:08 +0000 |
> From: rdiff-backup-users-bounces+rdiff-
> address@hidden [mailto:rdiff-backup-users-
> address@hidden 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...