2.1 beta or release

Werner Koch wk at gnupg.org
Fri Oct 24 20:54:36 CEST 2014

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:25, dkg at fifthhorseman.net said:

> having explicitly tagged explicit releases (beta or otherwise) makes it
> more straightforward for me to package it for debian, so i prefer that
> over trying to package the git head.

Hmmm, the last one build, right?

> Is the implication that if we call it 2.1.0, the 2.0.x branch will no
> longer be supported?  Will there be a separate "master" branch created

2.1 will stay as master ...

  My plan is to offer 2.1 as the new feature branch of GnuPG which may
  actually be used but might not be as stable as the, well, stable branch.
  As soon as this has stabilized the version will be bumped up to 2.2 and
  earmarked as the new stable branch (LTS in modern parlance).  At that
  time an end-of-life date will be announced for 2.0.
  The question is on how long it will take until we can do that.  Maybe we
  can look at the number of ECC keys on the keyservers to decide whether
  ECC and thus 2.2 can go mainstream.

Google End-toEnd team is working on a new-keys-are-ECC and that might
help us to get some momentum for a migration to 2.1

> mean we have to support an extra branch, then I think 2.1.0 is
> preferable, even if there are known regressions [0].

Yeah, sorry.  There are probably a lot of other regressions.  But at
some point we need to say stop adding features.  Thus today's pinentry
with Passphrase+Repeat-Passphrase should be the last feature.



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list