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

Re: [libvirt] retiring v0.9.6-maint



On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:15:10AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/18/2014 02:36 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:24:07PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> Any objections to retiring the v0.9.6-maint branch?  After all, we have
> >> already retired the v0.9.11-maint branch
> >> (http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=cd0d348ed), and the
> >> only activity on v0.9.6-maint since 0.9.6.4 was released in January 2013
> >> was the backport of a single CVE fix.  The branch no longer builds
> >> cleanly on Fedora 20, and while I could identify patches to backport to
> >> fix the build situation, it's not worth my time if we can just retire
> >> the branch.
> > 
> > FWIW, I'm not really a fan of deleting the branches. Is there any harm
> > to just leaving it there idle ?
> 
> The branches aren't deleted, per se, just a new commit added on top of
> the branch that declares the intent.  For example, all you see if you
> check out v0.9.11-maint is this README file:
> 
> http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=blob;f=README;h=68aeed1ae7d131661f2ba07eff1b4ae16ac4f3b8;hb=cd0d348ed
> 
> The branch would still usable by checking out v0.9.11-maint^ as a
> detached head, so the history is still there.  All I'm proposing is
> documenting that we aren't going to try and port security fixes to the
> branch any longer, because no one appears to be actively using it.

Ah, Ok, that seems fine.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


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