Maybe a 1.1.0?

[Nicolas Baradakis]

Alan DeKok wrote:

>   I've taken a quick look at porting a few features from the CVS head
> to 1.0.x.  Specifically, the new dictionaries, dictionary parser, and
> the weird VSA handling.  So far, it looks like it works.

Sounds good.

>   Should I commit it to 1.0.x, for maybe 1.0.6?  Or make a 1.1.x
> branch off of 1.0.x, and call the new code 1.1.0?

I'd prefer 1.1.0 rather than 1.0.6, even if I don't like branches of
branches in CVS.

>   It's been over a year since 1.0 was released, and having a 1.1.0
> with a few new features would be cool.  We could also back-port a few
> other things, like some of the module cleanups.  These should be
> relatively easy to back-port, and can have significant useful impact
> for people running the server.

There many, many changes in CVS that may go in 1.1.0. I can't tell
all of them, but it includes: newer autotools, {Pre,Post}-Proxy-Type
stanzas, support of ${Cisco-AVPair[n]} syntax, -n and -p options in
radclient, changes in rlm_attr_filter, new rlm_sql_log & radsqlrelay...

It'd be nice to have all of that in 1.1.0, but it'd mean to back-port
a lot of things. I'm starting to think perhaps it's easier to branch
CVS head and to downgrade a few files to undo IPv6 work (less than 10
files?) and some other things we keep for 2.0.

-- 
Nicolas Baradakis