Am 09.12.2011 14:24, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 12/09/2011 06:55 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 05.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Justin M. Forbes:
>>> Typically I get a flurry of patches shortly after
>>> a release (and they have already started for 1.0). I have tried to get
>>> a .1 release out in a
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 07:25:39AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 06:01 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:39:37AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>FWIW in libguestfs we have such a policy. Every few weeks I evaluate
> >>_all_ commits along the developme
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 13:55 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 05.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Justin M. Forbes:
> > Typically I get a flurry of patches shortly after
> > a release (and they have already started for 1.0). I have tried to get
> > a .1 release out in a timely manner, and then it seems patc
On 12/09/2011 06:01 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:39:37AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
FWIW in libguestfs we have such a policy. Every few weeks I evaluate
_all_ commits along the development branch and cherry pick those that
meet this policy back to the stable br
On 12/09/2011 06:55 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 05.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Justin M. Forbes:
Typically I get a flurry of patches shortly after
a release (and they have already started for 1.0). I have tried to get
a .1 release out in a timely manner, and then it seems patches for
stable become
Am 05.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Justin M. Forbes:
> Typically I get a flurry of patches shortly after
> a release (and they have already started for 1.0). I have tried to get
> a .1 release out in a timely manner, and then it seems patches for
> stable become few and far between. In the 0.14 and 0.1
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:39:37AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> FWIW in libguestfs we have such a policy. Every few weeks I evaluate
> _all_ commits along the development branch and cherry pick those that
> meet this policy back to the stable branch, followed by making a new
> stable release
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 02:08:03PM -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> The stable tree for 1.0 has now been created and the mailing list
> exists. I am curious as to people's thoughts on how we should proceed.
> There was discussion of setting up a predictable time table for stable
> releases, say mon
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> The stable tree for 1.0 has now been created and the mailing list
> exists.
Where does the stable 1.0 tree live?
Stefan
The stable tree for 1.0 has now been created and the mailing list
exists. I am curious as to people's thoughts on how we should proceed.
There was discussion of setting up a predictable time table for stable
releases, say monthly or bimonthly, though that seems a bit difficult
from past experience.
10 matches
Mail list logo
