This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils 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] |
On 17 Nov 2015 15:51, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 17/11/15 15:34, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >> My suggestion would be to run a lighter weight version of the GCC > >> development process (which I think works very well overall) with perhaps > >> a 5-month development window followed by a one month stabilization > >> window. At the end of that month the release branch is cut and a > >> release made from it once the code is suitably validated. Backporting > > > > This sounds like the glibc release process (except that glibc releases are > > made from master and the branch then made with the release point as the > > branch point). > > Possibly; glibc doesn't really do much in the way of maintenance > (re)releases though. we do maintain the release branches, but you're certainly correct we haven't (yet?) tried doing point releases. i don't think we have any objection to them, just no one has really requested/tried it yet. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |