This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Closing old release branches
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim at kugelworks dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:46:13 -0800
- 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> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401292135230 dot 24633 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I backported the mathinline.h fix to 2.16 only because 2.16 branch
was updated on 2014-01-04. Otherwise, I won't touch it.
--
H.J.