This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Maintaining 2.12

From: Petr Baudis <pasky at suse dot cz>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
Cc: schwab at redhat dot com, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, ams at gnu dot org,carlos at systemhalted dot org, joseph at codesourcery dot com
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 07:58:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Maintaining 2.12
References: <20100512215941.0295E40403@magilla.sf.frob.com><20100513142934.GK16800@machine.or.cz><20100514014539.AA819400BE@magilla.sf.frob.com><20100514233011.GM16800@machine.or.cz><20100518013910.850E44015E@magilla.sf.frob.com>

  Great that we agree!

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 06:39:10PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I think it would be good to keep the tradition of keeping the release
> > branch in sync with master right up to version.h update to .99.
> 
> Ok.  I wasn't sure Ulrich had always done this before and never after any
> change that anyone might consider insufficiently conservative for a
> "release freeze" period.  But apparently there is no problem of that sort.

  This would be a tricky situation that would have to be solved by an
explicit consensus, but my default preference would actually be to rather
break the release freeze early in the stable series rather than have two
divergent branches, each proclaiming to be stable 2.12 in version.h.

				Petr "Pasky" Baudis

References:
- Maintaining 2.12
  - From: Petr Baudis
- Re: Maintaining 2.12
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: Maintaining 2.12
  - From: Petr Baudis
- Re: Maintaining 2.12
  - From: Roland McGrath

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]