This is the mail archive of the libc-ports@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libc-ports 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] |
On Thursday 28 May 2009 18:05:12 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 28 May 2009 17:42:26 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > As a ports maintainer I am happy to create a 2.10 branch for ports > > > > could we get a glibc-2.10.1 tag to start with ? > > I'm not sure what the correct procedures are for creating/naming tags or > who should create/sign it or whether there should be such tags for > previous ports releases as well the cvs->git import brought in version tags from what i can see: http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc-ports.git;a=tags as for the signing of the tags, until we get a little more formal, i would simply not bother. if you can tag & push & no one complains about the tagged commit in question, then let's do it. > 9c052b7cc1a903d5de8152d4cc9096c8f8f5f0e1 would be an appropriate point to > tag 2.10.1 and to use as the branchpoint indeed > while > 9f8832d47f51d4abbbb1e9034f638653c730ec5b is the only subsequent commit > suitable for backporting to such a 2.10 branch as is. (Parts of > d9056ac6554d3d9635344d77375ae60f13707001 would be suitable for 2.10 branch > as bugfixes, but care would be needed not to introduce a fallocate64 > export in the process.) each arch maintainer can be responsible for cherry-picking and pushing the updated branch as they see fit i think -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |