--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:34:34AM -0700, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> [...], but I'd rather do that after 2.0.

I know you know this, but it is already "after 2.0" as far as branches
are concerned. =20

This kind of change will make later tcp pullups to the branch harder,
but that's still going to be true long after the 2.0 release is
formalised and finalised, and indeed after the next release as well
(since we typically maintain two prior branches).  So there's really
no better or worse time to make the change on the HEAD [*].

I think what you're trying to say is "make this this smaller change
first, and pull it up only", which is fine - but there is, just
perhaps, an argument to pull up the "proper" change instead.  Or
perhaps you're saying "pull up this small change before 2.0, and the
larger change after the beta cycle"?

Anyway, mostly a terminology nit, because I've seen a couple of
comments recently using "loose language" that may confuse some people
about how the branches work - but also something to think about wrt
what gets pulled up.

--
Dan.

[*] Unless you're anticipating another set of tcp changes needing
pullup shortly after. I have a funny feeling, after the recent TCP
vulnerability issues, that we may see more TCP tweaks soon - and
having the HEAD and branch in sync would be an advantage for that
later maintenance.


--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFAltdREAVxvV4N66cRAoUmAKCMM9IF5LdqrL5CNCPaKVe4FvPg+wCfX8HZ
S894ezqiDab5KV0kRcgJaOM=
=gtHH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA--