This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- From: Robert Schiele <rschiele at gmail dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, 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 07:47:31 +0100
- 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> <20140131032418 dot GK2149 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
I am not sure you are counting that since I am talking only about a
company internal distribution but in fact we do in our company use
those patches. I don't see a reason to leave the valuable but
typically low-risk patches on the release/maintenance branches out
unless we talk about other projects with bad change management on
maintenance branches. So, you might not count my statement here since
I am not talking about a publicly available distribution but you asked
for feedback.
Robert