[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: stable branches (was Re: [PATCH 0/8] maintenance patches)

From: James Youngman
Subject: Re: stable branches (was Re: [PATCH 0/8] maintenance patches)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:28:03 +0000

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Kamil Dudka <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Monday 04 January 2016 15:17:24 James Youngman wrote:
>> c) I'd like input from the other committers and from the principal
>> downstream consumers (e.g. Andreas, Kamil) before making a choice,
>> since it's the committers who would need to maintain the parallel
>> branches and the downstream maintainers who (allegedly) benefit.
>> Let's have a data-based discussion about what works for everyone - in
>> a separate thread, I'd suggest.
> Fedora and RHEL maintainers backport mainly fixes for bugs that are reported
> via Red Hat Bugzilla.  At the same time, we update to the latest upstream
> release in the development version of Fedora, from which the stable Fedora
> releases are branched each 6 months approx.
> As an example, these are the findutils versions we currently maintain:
> findutils-4.6.0  - in Fedora rawhide (the development version of Fedora)
> findutils-4.5.16 - in Fedora 23 (released on November 3rd, 2015)
> findutils-4.5.14 - in Fedora 22 (released on May 26th, 2015)
> findutils-4.5.11 - in RHEL-7 (released on June 9th, 2014)
> findutils-4.4.2  - in RHEL-6 (released on November 9th, 2010)
> If there are "stable" branches for upstream findutils, I will be happy to
> share any backports that apply, to make them available to other downstream
> distributions with a similar release cycle.  If there is a linear history
> only, it will also work for us.

Just to be very clear, I think this means that you (like Bernhard)
don't think you derive much benefit from the distinction between
"stable" (ftp.gnu.org) and "development" (alpha.gnu.org) releases of


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]