On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Ken Dreyer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Simon Wilkinson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Following on from last weeks plethora of resignations and >> negativity, I want to propose some ways that we can move forwards, >> and hopefully reduce the inertia that has built up in our >> development process. > > Thanks a lot for this thread. > >> We should appoint release managers (other than the gatekeepers) for >> the 1.4 and 1.6 stable branches. > > This is a good idea. It brings up some questions I've had about the > future 1.6.2. > > 1) Does anyone know of any blocking issues that would prevent us from > cutting a release from HEAD on 1_6_x right now? > > 2) What are the steps/commands for doing a release? I read > http://wiki.openafs.org/AFSLore/GateKeeping/, but perhaps > that should be re-examined to deal with the CVS to Git transition, and > expanded a bit. > > 3) What is the policy (official, or conventional) for getting > backports into 1_6_x? I have cherry-picked several of Marc's commits > for newer kernels from master to 1_6_1 in order to get 1.6.1 to build > on Fedora 18/19 for RPM Fusion. I imagine that these patches haven't > been backported to 1_6_x at this time because Marc / Gatekeepers don't > have the time. Is it ok if I just submit my cherry-picking efforts to > Gerrit against 1_6_x myself, or is that going to interfere with some > process that the Gatekeepers already do? I would love to see these > get into 1.6.2 or 1.6.3.
Not only is it ok, it's been expressly requested. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
