This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, 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: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:29:02 +0530
- 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> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401311709310 dot 26476 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 31 January 2014 22:40, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> If a distribution works from a release tarball rather than directly from
> the git tag,
We have started using release tarballs for Fedora now, with Fedora 20
being the first one to have it...
> 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)....
... However, even with that change, I don't see us using point
releases extensively for Fedora given the relatively short release
cycle and life. It probably won't happen even for RHEL for other
reasons, but that's not completely out of the question. However, even
if we do decide to use release branches for RHEL, it would mean that
we maintain only one out of every 5-7 release branches and other
branches may again go unmaintained if nobody else is using them.
In any case, I am not arguing against the utility of maintaining
release branches; I just wanted to know if anyone is actually using
them since if they are not in extensive use then it is quite obvious
why release branches are not actively maintained. Further, if nobody
has any plans to use point releases in future then it is futile to
even expect their active maintenance. If there is in fact an interest
then we probably need do define a more open workflow for them so that
those distribution maintainers can decide on when these point releases
go out.
Siddhesh
--
http://siddhesh.in