On Thu, 05 Apr 2007, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> We also still support the 1.3 line, according to the 1.4 release notes.
For me, this is really key. We absolutely have to put out 1.4.x and
1.3.x patches, per our current support claims. Let's focus on doing a
1.4.x and 1.3.x FIRST.
That said, Erik has backported the changes to the older release
streams. I'm personally willing to build an environment and do the
testing on each. I'd assume that 1.2 would be higher priority than
1.1, which would be higher priority than 1.0, but someone (Erik?)
indicated that 1.1 might have a wider distribution at the moment.
After 1.4.x and 1.3.x are wrapped up, let's tackle the older releases
in some sort of priority order -- if downstream package maintainers
really want a patch, it's already available from our repository.
> I have no problem with us publishing a patch for 1., if it means
> that we can avoid recreating a build environment. As Justin says, it
> also probably helps avoid user confusion, and I suspect it's easier to
> upload a patch+sig to CollabNet than all the zip/tar files and sigs.
> However, even if we release a patch, we still need to:
> - backport to the 1.x line in question and produce a patch
> - apply the patch to the 1.x tarball
Erik has done this work.
> - test
> - get signatures for testing (signed against the patch)
> - release note
> - release
This -- not insignificant -- work remains outstanding.
Received on Fri Apr 6 00:07:57 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored