From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8864 invoked by alias); 21 May 2003 19:04:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8843 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 19:04:59 -0000 Subject: Re: ecos-v2_0-branch [ was Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c] ] From: Gary Thomas To: John Dallaway Cc: eCos Maintainers In-Reply-To: <200305212001.44191.jld@ecoscentric.com> References: <1053536609.1558.563.camel@hermes> <3ECBBF6A.5080508@eCosCentric.com> <200305212001.44191.jld@ecoscentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MLB Associates Message-Id: <1053543897.1558.970.camel@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:04:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 13:01, John Dallaway wrote: > I think the finite time we can devote to "eCos maintainer" activities is > better spent on improving the head (including the processing of contributed > patches) than maintaining a release branch which has now fulfilled its > purpose. I therefore propose that we consider the ecos-v2_0-branch to be > dead. This matches my feelings as well. I want to thank everyone that worked to get 2.0 so such a release could be made. This, in itself, should be considered a milestone in the history of eCos. Now, on to the future :-) > > John Dallaway > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Larmour > Date: Wednesday 21 May 2003 19:03 > Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c] > > > Gary Thomas wrote: > > > So, what is the expected policy? I can't see any of us spending > > > tremendous resources trying to keep a release branch up-to-date. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > The branch is tagged with a release tag, so I have no aversion if people > > _want_ to check fixes in.... but my personal opinion is that I can't see > > us doing another release based on the 2.0 branch. If we wanted to do one, > > I would suggest cutting a new branch off the trunk. But there's nothing > > to warrant that for a while yet IMHO. > > > > BTW, sorry I've been well out of the loop recently. I'm still, er, > > preoccupied (as per ). I'll try > > and get back into things now. > > > > Jifl -- Gary Thomas MLB Associates