spamassassin-dev September 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-dev archives
spamassassin-dev: Re: September 30th release candidate Re: [Bug

Re: September 30th release candidate Re: [Bug 6658] Version 3.2.5 looks like it would be reasonable to install according to web site

From: Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec+sa_at_nospam>
Date: Wed Sep 14 2011 - 00:29:28 GMT

> >> There are a few usefull additions/fixes in 3.4 trunk which won't ever
> >> get backported and it would be a pity to have to wait
> Why not back port the few features/fixes?

diff -U2 sa-3.3 sa-3.4 | (cd sa-3.3; patch)


Seems to me the 3.4 (trunk) is being much better tested by
active developers than a backport-patched 3.3.x would ever be.
The only need for 3.3.3 would arise if some important security
fix or large breakage like the Y2010 bug would pop up.

> If there are no (or few) major changes, why not do the backports. They
> should be trivial. Has the branch really drifted that far out of sync
> with trunk?

There are lots of small changes all over the place.
We probably already lost track of all that has changed.

> > Alex, what are your thoughts on NOT creating a 3.4 branch and continuing
> > with trunk for development? You seem to be pro the concept above and it
> > makes sense that if we switch to rtc on trunk say 1 week or so before a
> > release date as defined in the ReleaseGoals, everyone is happy.
Daryl writes:
> I'm quite uncomfortable with that myself, however I haven't written a
> lot of code for SA in the past couple of years myself. I do think
> efforts should be placed on regular review of patches against stable
> branches instead.

To me it makes most sense to create a 3.4 branch at the time of a release
or shortly before it. So I'm closer to Kevin on this than with Daryl.