On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Kamil Dudka <kdu...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2016 15:17:24 James Youngman wrote: >> c) I'd like input from the other committers and from the principal >> downstream consumers (e.g. Andreas, Kamil) before making a choice, >> since it's the committers who would need to maintain the parallel >> branches and the downstream maintainers who (allegedly) benefit. >> Let's have a data-based discussion about what works for everyone - in >> a separate thread, I'd suggest. > > Fedora and RHEL maintainers backport mainly fixes for bugs that are reported > via Red Hat Bugzilla. At the same time, we update to the latest upstream > release in the development version of Fedora, from which the stable Fedora > releases are branched each 6 months approx. > > As an example, these are the findutils versions we currently maintain: > > findutils-4.6.0 - in Fedora rawhide (the development version of Fedora) > findutils-4.5.16 - in Fedora 23 (released on November 3rd, 2015) > findutils-4.5.14 - in Fedora 22 (released on May 26th, 2015) > findutils-4.5.11 - in RHEL-7 (released on June 9th, 2014) > findutils-4.4.2 - in RHEL-6 (released on November 9th, 2010) > > If there are "stable" branches for upstream findutils, I will be happy to > share any backports that apply, to make them available to other downstream > distributions with a similar release cycle. If there is a linear history > only, it will also work for us.
Just to be very clear, I think this means that you (like Bernhard) don't think you derive much benefit from the distinction between "stable" (ftp.gnu.org) and "development" (alpha.gnu.org) releases of findutils? Thanks, James.