4.3.0 status update

Harold L Hunt II huntharo@msu.edu
Tue Jan 14 18:51:00 GMT 2003


No recent patches were lost.  I am talking about patches that I 
submitted after the 4.2.0 branch.  After about two weeks you stopped 
committing them to both trees, even though I noted that they should be 
committed to both trees.  I thought I remember you telling me at one 
point that you didn't have a local 4.2.0 tree anymore... I could be 
wrong, but I got the impression that I shouldn't waste more time with 
4.2.0 patches, so that's what I did.

Are you telling me instead that you will be able to apply bug fixes to a 
stable 4.3.0 tree for the life cycle of that version?  That would be 
nice indeed.


Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:02:37 -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>>Right, but I am being very pragmatic here.  In the past it has been 
>>difficult to submit, and get Alan to commit, dual patches for both head 
>>and a branch.  After about a month, I think Alan deletes the branch, so 
>>patches to it seem to go to lala land.  So my point is pretty much: 
>>January 17 for fewer headaches.  :)
> All patches you've submitted for head or branch should be there. If they're not
> then ping me with the patch number.
> If there's a delay in committing, then it's nothing to do with deleting
> branches etc. It's to do with my time.
> Alan.

More information about the Cygwin-xfree mailing list