Re: how many stable branches to have

[Michal Sekletar <msekleta () redhat com>]

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 life easier,
nevertheless I don't think that branches named after possible downstream
users are good idea.

Instead I propose we should consider scheme used by Linux kernel, i.e.
having {tcpdump,libpcap}-$version-stable and
{tcpdump,libpcap}-$version-longterm branches.

On a related subject...If upstream decides to have some branches marked
as stable/longterm, then IMHO, also the process for merging patches
needs to be modified for those branches. E.g. pull request needs to get
at least two ACKs from core maintainers to get in.

Michal

_______________________________________________
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers () lists tcpdump org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers