From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31442 invoked by alias); 21 May 2003 18:04:56 -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 28418 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 18:03:26 -0000 Message-ID: <3ECBBF6A.5080508@eCosCentric.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 18:04:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Thomas Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c] References: <1053536609.1558.563.camel@hermes> In-Reply-To: <1053536609.1558.563.camel@hermes> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 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 -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts --[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]-- --[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine