Policy for RSB branches for 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11
gedare at rtems.org
Sun Feb 28 14:48:47 UTC 2016
I'm in favor, because I have observed new users building the 4.11
tools and not knowing they have to branch to 4.11 in rtems.git. Having
to "branch" to get the 4.11 tools should help make the look-and-feel
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2016 5:08 PM, "Chris Johns" <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>> Should we create branches for 4.9 and 4.10 in the RSB repo?
>> Should the 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 build set files and config scripts be
>> removed from master?
> As long as we keep branches for them.
> FWIW I wouldn't be opposed to RSB branches for even older releases if a user
> submitted them.
>> I do not see the point of maintaining the branches for releases and the
>> master and I can see a situation where the 4.11 build on master, ie
>> currently 4.12, is wrong but noticeable so.
> If RTEMS has a branch, the RSB should follow. Master should be 4.12 only.
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
More information about the devel