This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:10:46 +0000
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52E649BF dot 5020400 at archlinux dot org> <20140128205657 dot 16DBA74438 at topped-with-meat dot com> <52E9DEB7 dot 4000709 at redhat dot com> <52E9E84F dot 50907 at redhat dot com> <52EA682D dot 90900 at archlinux dot org> <ormwid428y dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401302131080 dot 12540 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140131032418 dot GK2149 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:36:07PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > I'd think backporting to 2.19 branch any documentation that doesn't make
> > the cut-off for the release should be fine. (Though we haven't yet
> > managed to do particularly well with handling release branches after
> > release. They should have most or all of the bug-fix patches distributors
>
> Does anybody actually use the release branches, i.e. to cut tarballs
> for their distributions and manage patches? I know we don't in Fedora
> and RHEL.
If a distribution works from a release tarball rather than directly from
the git tag, I'd imagine that having such release tarballs for point
releases would make it more likely distributors would use the release
branches (via those release tarballs)....
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com