On Jun 12, 2014, at 23:55 , Jeffrey Altman wrote: > On 6/12/2014 4:51 PM, Stephan Wiesand wrote: >> >> On Jun 12, 2014, at 22:09 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Gerrit Code Review wrote: >>> >>>> The following commit has been merged in the openafs-stable-1_6_9-branch >>>> branch: >>>> commit ca0be5b2a69476cc577976fad0767dfbf8628857 >>>> Merge: 9492d2a 3381492 >>>> Author: Stephan Wiesand <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Thu Jun 12 10:52:09 2014 +0200 >>>> >>>> Merge branch 'security-1.6' into HEAD >>>> >>> >>> I believe this commit was only pushed to the 1.6. 9 branch, and is not >>> present on the openafs-stable-1_6_x branch (which should be fixed). >> >> >> This is a long story not to be told ever. I hate security releases. >> >> What I think should happen is that we forget about 1_6_9-branch and merge >> gerrit 11283 (which is equivalent, except for the 1.6.9 version strings and >> a single line in NEWS, and that can be verified), and get on with life... > > I want to speak with Simon. There are two alternatives. The one > that Stephan mentioned and a merge commit on openafs-stable-1_6_x which > pulls in the two patches that make up 1.6.9.
Those merges are just ugly IMO. And they are only needed when we feel forced to do things behind gerrit's back. If we can avoid them, we should. Cherry-picking the commit from the openafs-stable-1_6_9-branch (bc8f62fcdfa479023d15125404d1b13b6dfd6dc3) seems even better than just accepting 11283 to me. > In either case nothing else should ever be committed on top of > openafs-stable-1_6_9. Not as it is, right. I'm wondering whether that merge commit could be reverted though, just in case we'd need a 1.6.9.1 (which is not too unlikely). > This will be sorted out tomorrow. Any news? -- Stephan_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
