You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2005/08/15 19:37:01 UTC

Re: proposed branch policy change

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Daniel Quinlan writes:
> I propose that new branches default to CTR mode and only enter RTC if
> explicitly made so.  All existing branches are RTC mode, of course.

+1

> (In retrospect, I think forking 3.1 was timed right, but that we were
> not ready for RTC on it.)

I can't parse that sentence. ;)   I think the timing is 100% dependent
on how ready we are.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFDANK9MJF5cimLx9ARAlDQAJ4sO3d3znplfEmYE1n4+nY9sh2GKgCePTDO
i5FOcR5FNVrEyZOudFnBd+k=
=1guq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: proposed branch policy change

Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:37:01AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> Daniel Quinlan writes:
> > I propose that new branches default to CTR mode and only enter RTC if
> > explicitly made so.  All existing branches are RTC mode, of course.

+1

I agree that the act of branching and the decision to go to RTC should
not necessarily be made at the same time.

-- 
Duncan Findlay