[Sorry for the late response, the message was in the spam box]
On 08/06/2015 11:32, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:12:03 +0100 Francois-Xavier Le
Bail wrote
> On 26/05/2015 15:33, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> > On 05/26/2015 11:46 AM, Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote:
> >
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:12:03 +0100 Francois-Xavier Le
Bail wrote
> On 26/05/2015 15:33, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> > On 05/26/2015 11:46 AM, Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote:
> >> I propose this:
> >> We could give an "End of Life" date for each release branches.
> >> This mean that
On 26/05/2015 15:33, Michal Sekletar wrote:
On 05/26/2015 11:46 AM, Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote:
I propose this:
We could give an "End of Life" date for each release branches.
This mean that after this date, the tcpdump group would not update any
more the branch.
Having clearly defined EoL i
On 05/26/2015 11:46 AM, Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote:
AFAIK, This is not the scheme used by the linux kernel.
they don't have '-stable' or '-longterm' in their names as these are
moving 'attributes' given on the main page of kernel.org.
You are right, those really are attributes.
I propose
> From: Michal Sekletar
> Instead I propose we should consider scheme used by Linux kernel, i.e.
> having {tcpdump,libpcap}-$version-stable and
> {tcpdump,libpcap}-$version-longterm branches.
AFAIK, This is not the scheme used by the linux kernel.
they don't have '-stable' or '-longterm' in the
On 05/21/2015 08:16 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I have no problem with having lts- branches created for distros, and I'd
> rather do that than have "old stable". I'd rather call them something like:
>wheezy-4.7
> or centos7-4.7
Clearly having CentOS branch upstream would make my
Guy Harris wrote:
>> I have no problem with having lts- branches created for distros, and I'd
>> rather do that than have "old stable". I'd rather call them something
>like:
>> wheezy-4.7
>> or centos7-4.7
> So, if both Chocolate Coated Spinach Linux "Orangina" and P
On May 21, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I have no problem with having lts- branches created for distros, and I'd
> rather do that than have "old stable". I'd rather call them something like:
> wheezy-4.7
> or centos7-4.7
So, if both Chocolate Coated Spinach Linux "O
There was a discussion about what branches to possibly backport fixes to.
Guy has related:
Guy Harris wrote:
> Wireshark has:
> https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LifeCycle
> * the current development branch (master, trunk, whatever);
> * the current stable branch (currentl
