This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Glibc stable release process (Glibc 2.26.1)
- From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann dot morin dot 1998 at free dot fr>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge at gentoo dot org>, "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabriel at inconstante dot eti dot br>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Romain Naour <romain dot naour at gmail dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan at linux dot intel dot com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:27:44 +0200
- Subject: Re: Glibc stable release process (Glibc 2.26.1)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <60f78cac-9cf4-51b1-9ade-21cd09783d96@gmail.com> <93d68f19-73a0-d906-ece2-bdc002507ca5@sourceware.org> <20171003111452.57b93728@keller.br.ibm.com> <4773752.WJm1WquXeR@porto> <8420d029-4ad2-b156-5f79-be0727d5dc04@sourceware.org>
Siddhesh, All,
On 2017-10-04 12:04 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar spake thusly:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Tuesday 03 October 2017 08:27 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > 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.
Having regular dot-releases would be awesome, yes! Thanks! :-)
I think every two months is a bit long, esepecially for the .1 release.
Most of the critical bugs are largely identified and fixed in the first
month after the release, so maybe a .1 one month after the release,
then every two months for the next ones sounds more sensible?
> > This might make releases more
> > comparable between distributions.
>
> I think the difference there is on who has the responsibility of
> testing the release tarball. When we bless a release as upstream, we
> should at least be doing some minimal testing before throwing it over
> the wall.
As was previously discussed, it was my understanding that backports
from master to the stable branch undergo a rather strict process, so
the stable branch should only see pretty solid changes coming in in
the first place.
As such, it makes sense that the testing that has to be done on the
branch be limited when compared to a full release.
> If a distribution builds a tarball off the branch and uses
> it, it becomes their responsibility to test :)
Agreed. :-)
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
> Siddhesh
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQFMBAEBCAA2FiEEvHxzcmN+wQxX16plecQ9+/HPIYcFAlnUgQUYHHNpZGRoZXNo
> QHNvdXJjZXdhcmUub3JnAAoJEHnEPfvxzyGHp5EH/1I+8s2iPlltknhLsxYrxC9c
> THAijpZs8yr+vBat+T8MsfTxN92YDbxGTPH3yQuU5riThJs0q6DGNj+MIKBA76ZI
> zzZeXav3yCHRMm/WIRp0kysUHhnXj3GB976nJart2HjcrZEgYdPQok50/Xdhd4po
> 8ORMcST0g2lSnHltAX5fEcj51W1N57Av3ykdNJdaSLS2PELC0e3mWJb0zEcNUm+l
> PmWN37IlY0lxCKPMhHrndafSIEQ2Thk36bMIq0dKDEF5hHrDl0MXWtyVNW0wsmLL
> oi0cgfThzmD9k2UYleut/+IMFgOeB6YxgXppfi3RYuJd4vJLCkZ6yXVM2KdKZ+Q=
> =MdDO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
| Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'