4.3.0 status update
Harold L Hunt II
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
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.
More information about the Cygwin-xfree