Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2011, 10:38:08 schrieb davidMbrooke:
> Hi kp,
>
> Just wondering if we're planning to have a "4.1-fixes" branch in Git
> like we did for 4.0, with the changes for 4.1.1 going into there as well
> as the master?
Hi David;
sorry for late reply, was away for three days...
I don't think we do need a 4.1-fixes branch, because the current master
contains just fixes and non-intrusive updates for 4.1 (which will become
4.1.1 sometimes later). In fact nearly each change results in packages
which are more or less a drop-in replacement for the 4.1 packages (openssl
update is a bit different, it affects all packages that are build with
openssl support).
So unless anyone wants to change the kernel, which I don't think will
happen in the next weeks, master is similar to 4.1-fixes.
If this approach slowes down development, I'll of course vote to create
4.1-fixes ASAP :)
On the other hand, I'm currently thinking about the idea to build a "later"
branch to testdrive uClibc 0.9.32. I haven't tested the already built
packages and images in production, but a first try looks promising (see Trac
ticket #36).
But I'd like to see, what Andrew thinks about it ("how do we merge between
master and a "later" branch without having too much working maintaing both?
etc).
kp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
leaf-devel mailing list
leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
