Re: Glibc stable release process (Glibc 2.26.1)

["Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge at gentoo dot org>]

Am Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2017, 16:14:52 CEST schrieb Gabriel F. T. Gomes:
> On 03 Oct 2017, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >On Tuesday 03 October 2017 12:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> I still don't understand why you need tarballs for releases, though.  or
> >> put differently, the difference between glibc 2.26.5 and glibc 2.26-40
> >> seems rather minor to me, and producing the tarballs is quite a bit of
> >> work for us.
> >
> >Right.  To be clear, even if I agree to do one now, it should not be
> >binding on any future release managers to do the same for their release
> >branch.  Maybe it makes sense to have a targeted discussion like this
> >with the final decision being that of the release manager for that release.
> 
> If you actually agree to do one now, are we going to have something
> similar to a code freeze?

Given that your previous recommendation was "stay with the tip of the release 
branch", that sounds unnecessary. My recommendation from my experience as 
packager of other software would be, 
* keep adding backports to the release branches as careful as now
* tag (and tar?) point releases from the release branches at regular 
intervals, say every two months.
This might make releases more comparable between distributions. 

Of course, alternatively, every distro can do the tag and tar just themselves. 
And and in any case add patches in between... but the next point release gives 
a common reference point then again.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.