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 at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: 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: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:54:18 +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>
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:36:07PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I'd think backporting to 2.19 branch any documentation that doesn't make
> the cut-off for the release should be fine. (Though we haven't yet
> managed to do particularly well with handling release branches after
> release. They should have most or all of the bug-fix patches distributors
Does anybody actually use the release branches, i.e. to cut tarballs
for their distributions and manage patches? I know we don't in Fedora
and RHEL.
Siddhesh