From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ecos-maintainers-return-421-listarch-ecos-maintainers=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 1968 invoked by alias); 21 May 2003 19:01:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ecos-maintainers-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Post: <mailto:ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 1958 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 19:01:55 -0000
From: John Dallaway <jld@ecoscentric.com>
Organization: eCosCentric Limited
To: eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: ecos-v2_0-branch [ was Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c] ]
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:01:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <1053536609.1558.563.camel@hermes> <3ECBBF6A.5080508@eCosCentric.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ECBBF6A.5080508@eCosCentric.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200305212001.44191.jld@ecoscentric.com>
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2

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.

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 <http://worf.jifvik.org:9999/gallery/baby>). I'll try
> and get back into things now.
>
> Jifl