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]

Re: glibc-ports.git status


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]