Re: [rdiff-backup-users] What is the current rdiff-backup version?

[Edward Ned Harvey (rdiff-backup)]

> 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...