Ports status for 2.11 (was: Re: Will the alpha port be usable for =?iso-8859-1?q?=092=2E11=3F?=)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 08 November 2009 13:29:45 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >> I'm about to mark #4457 as fixed on trunk, but needed on glibc_2.11,
> >> who is the branch maintainer for glibc_2.11?
> >
> > I am presuming that when 2.11 branches it will do so based on current
> > master (not on the 2.11 tag) and so all fixes checked in to libc so far
> > will be on 2.11 branch.
> 
> What purpose does the 2.11 tag serve if the branch isn't made from that
>  tag?

while it sounds a little backwards, it doesnt make much practical difference.  
think of the branch and tag being created at the same time, but then some 
changes are added to the branch after the tag.  the fact that the changes are 
also in trunk doesnt matter too much.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-ports/attachments/20091108/4bc0dd39/attachment.sig>