From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49448 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752171AbdASMq6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:46:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:46:53 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: Bernhard Voelker Cc: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: stable/v2.29.1 Message-ID: <20170119124653.2tbsa7pmkpgv3bfl@ws.net.home> References: <20170118131217.3kv7samrkbnxmqqr@ws.net.home> <20170119113502.ykteazztzpd7eocs@ws.net.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 01/19/2017 12:35 PM, Karel Zak wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:32:20AM +0100, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > >> On 01/18/2017 02:12 PM, Karel Zak wrote: > >>> The branch stable/v2.29 contains what I want to release as v2.29.1. > >> > >> General question: > >> Is it worth dealing with maintenance branches in the upstream repo? > >> I mean, downstream projects can cherry-pick fixes and improvements > >> to their own needs anyway. So I think having one upstream mainline > >> would be sufficient. WDYT? > > > > I use the branches to create maintenance releases (tarballs), e.g. > > v2.29.1. > > > > The goal is to minimize number of patches in downstream packages. So I > > guess downstream are happy to have .1 and .2 releases. > > I see: as you're also downstream Redhat/Fedora maintainer, you're > effectively doing the downstream work in the upstream repository and > thus share this to other projects. That's nice. ;-) another downstreams also collaborate on maintenance releases. For example right now we want to release 2.29.1 before Debian freeze :-) Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com