This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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]

Re: glibc 2.19 status?


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]