[libvirt] retiring v0.9.6-maint
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Thu Sep 18 15:22:15 UTC 2014
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 :|
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list