This is the mail archive of the 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: Maintaining 2.12

> If others see a problem, they are welcome to propose solutions and
> procedures.

All sounds fine to me.  I hope others who were asking here about tarballs
and so on will chime in if they have issues, or help edit the wiki pages to
make sure anyone else with similar questions finds these answers readily
when looking the next time around.

> Ad who will volunteer to be the maintainer, I was prepare to open that
> question when 2.12 leaves master, for precisely the reasons above;

Ok.  Personally I think it would be ideal for the interested people to
discuss openly here and tentatively agree on particular plans and
individual responsibilities this before it gets to that first "rc" stage.
But it's really up to those directly involved.

> I think it would be good to keep the tradition of keeping the release
> branch in sync with master right up to version.h update to .99.

Ok.  I wasn't sure Ulrich had always done this before and never after any
change that anyone might consider insufficiently conservative for a
"release freeze" period.  But apparently there is no problem of that sort.

> I agree; but I believe the process is clear, well-defined and hopefully
> working for minor stable releases (we will hopefully confirm that with
> 2.12.2 now), just not for the major stable release. My argument is that
> given the state of the major stable release, I simply don't think it is
> a huge problem or one that should automatically be in competence of the
> to-be stable maintainers.

I don't think I entirely parsed that last sentence.  
But I think I take your point and I don't disagree.


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