Re: Merging glibc-ports repo

[Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>]

On 26/06/12 00:01, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 6/23/2012 3:15 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 23/06/12 00:46, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, Allan McRae wrote:
>>>
>>>> One workaround would be if this merge was done _immediately_ after the
>>>> glibc-2.16 tag.  Then the commit bringing in glibc-ports could just be
>>>> given its own tag. Not ideal, but it would only have to be used for a
>>>> single release.
>>>
>>> I think that would be reasonable:
>>>
>>> * Freeze master.
>>>
>>> * Make the release from master, as has been generally done before (rather 
>>> than branching first), with both libc and ports getting glibc-2.16 tags on 
>>> master.
>>>
>>> * Create the 2.16 branches of both libc and ports with the 2.16 tags as 
>>> branchpoint.
>>>
>>> * Get the ports history into the ports directory of libc's master, as 
>>> discussed (without changing master in the ports repository).
>>>
>>> * Tag the new state of libc's repository as glibc-2.16-merged or similar - 
>>> it should be exactly what you get if you put 2.16 ports in a ports 
>>> subdirectory of 2.16 libc.
>>>
>>> * Add a README.ports-moved-to-libc file to ports master and change the 
>>> hooks to disallow subsequent commits to ports master.
>>>
>>> * Do all the usual post-release-branch steps for libc master (updating 
>>> version numbers / development state).
>>
>>
>> That sounds a good plan to me.
>>
>> @Carlos: Are you happy doing this as port of your glibc-2.16 release
>> process?
> 
> Allan,
> 
> Yes. I can do this as part of the 2.16 release process.
> 
> Could you please start a wiki page for the transition if we haven't already?
> 

Wiki page added here:
http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.16/PortsMerge

I think I covered all the points mentioned in this thread...

Allan