2.22.1 Possible -> Yes!
Fri Apr 27 03:24:00 GMT 2012
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Mike Frysinger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 April 2012 21:30:56 Alan Modra wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:58:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Thursday 26 April 2012 20:39:11 Alan Modra wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 03:29:22PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> > > > Ok, I will make a 2.22.1 release.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know why we bother with branches. We just fool users into
>> > > thinking that the branches are live, when really, not much activity
>> > > takes place on binutils branches.
>> > bugfixes get applied to the branches ... what more activity should there
>> > be ?
>> Most bugfixes *don't* get applied to the branch. Take a look at
>> change logs if you disbelieve.
> i'm not disagreeing that all bugfixes get applied to the branch. but some do,
> and we get feedback from people as to the really important ones that bite to
> make sure those do get merged.
>> Typically you get a flurry of activity
>> during the time from a branch being cut to the release (even that is
>> wasted developer time, applying patches to both trunk and branch),
>> then very little activity after the release. That makes the 2.22
>> branch on major targets, at this point in time, quite inferior to
> a release from trunk means 2.23, not another 2.22. i also don't think you can
> say that the trunk is that much better considering it hasn't been released and
> tested on distros for a variety of targets. if trunk really truly was as well
> tested & stable as you say, then we wouldn't have releases which were badly
> broken for some targets. this isn't anything specific to the 2.22 branch
> point, just a reality of development -- bugs slip through. every release has
> its own set of issues.
I agree with Alan. Binutils trunk is quite stable. I have little problem
with binutils trunk for everything on x86, including GCC, glibc and kernel.
More information about the Binutils