On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:15:10AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/18/2014 02:36 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:24:07PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >> Any objections to retiring the v0.9.6-maint branch? After all, we have > >> already retired the v0.9.11-maint branch > >> (http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=cd0d348ed), and the > >> only activity on v0.9.6-maint since 0.9.6.4 was released in January 2013 > >> was the backport of a single CVE fix. The branch no longer builds > >> cleanly on Fedora 20, and while I could identify patches to backport to > >> fix the build situation, it's not worth my time if we can just retire > >> the branch. > > > > FWIW, I'm not really a fan of deleting the branches. Is there any harm > > to just leaving it there idle ? > > The branches aren't deleted, per se, just a new commit added on top of > the branch that declares the intent. For example, all you see if you > check out v0.9.11-maint is this README file: > > http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=blob;f=README;h=68aeed1ae7d131661f2ba07eff1b4ae16ac4f3b8;hb=cd0d348ed > > The branch would still usable by checking out v0.9.11-maint^ as a > detached head, so the history is still there. All I'm proposing is > documenting that we aren't going to try and port security fixes to the > branch any longer, because no one appears to be actively using it. Ah, Ok, that seems fine. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list