This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Closing old release branches
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, "H.J. , Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim at kugelworks dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:43:08 +0000
- Subject: Re: Closing old release branches
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1308281619580 dot 752 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130828170429 dot 8316F2C08D at topped-with-meat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309071602460 dot 21653 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Sat, 7 Sep 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Let's consider this for a policy:
> >
> > At the same time we choose the release manager for an upcoming release, we
> > take a poll on the status of past release branches. For each past release,
> > if its release manager does not respond within a week, or says they are not
> > really maintaining it any more, then we give another week for someone new
> > to step forward and say they want to maintain that release branch (and
> > perhaps say why they care). After that, we declare each orphaned branch to
> > be closed, and update the wiki.
> >
> > For the current cycle, we can start that process now since we didn't do it
> > when selecting the 2.18 release manager.
>
> I've seen no sign of release manager interest in continuing to maintain
> the 2.16 and older branches. Is anyone else interested in them?
I saw no response to this. I have now updated
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release> to (a) list all branches up to
and including 2.16 as closed, (b) restore links to wiki pages for the
long-closed 2.10 and 2.13 branches, since it does seem useful to have
those links.
Carlos, I've seen you approving patches for 2.15 and 2.16 more recently
than September; Maxim, H.J., I've seen you proposing / committing such
patches. Please decide whether you actually want to maintain those
branches. If someone does, then move them back to the maintained section
of the wiki page and list yourself as having taken over the branch
(probably list both the original release manager and the subsequent branch
maintainer). If not, then Carlos, I think you get to close the bugs that
are only open for 2.15 backporting (13756 13765 14284 14668 - I didn't
find any bugs only open for 2.16 backporting). And we should stop
committing patches to those branches in the absence of someone wishing to
maintain them.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com