Upcoming Releases of 1.12.0 & 2.4.0

Jiri Vanek jvanek at redhat.com
Wed Apr 17 01:46:36 PDT 2013


On 02/20/2013 01:20 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Hughes <
>> gnu.andrew at redhat.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Could you update the table in
>>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/ReleasePolicy
>>> with details about IcedTea 2.4?
>>>
>>
>> I will as soon as it's released :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oops, I guess I thought it was, especially with the 2.4 release
>> forest already existing.
>>
>
> My fault.  I should have posted more news on what was going on, but it's
> been kinda hectic.  I was all set to release it just after FOSDEM, then
> the security update happened.  Then, by the time we recovered from that,
> another one happened.
>
>>
>>
>>> Also, could you clarify the new maintainership of IcedTea6 1.12,
>>> perhaps by s/1.11/1.x/ and perhaps s/IcedTea/IcedTea 2.x/ ?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow. The following releases are currently
>> supported:
>>
>> 1.11.x
>> 1.12.x
>> 2.1.x
>> 2.2.x
>> 2.3.x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What I mean is - who is maintaining what?
>> You are listed as the maintainer of "IcedTea", while Omair is listed
>> as the maintainer of "1.11". But that's probably not quite right -
>> I'm guessing you are the maintainer of 2.x, while Omair is the
>> maintainer of 1.x (including 1.12), which isn't clear from the first
>> table.
>>
>
> Oh, right, sorry.  It's not really that formal and it tends to work
> more as Omair will do the release if I'm not around to do it i.e.
> whoever wants to pitches in and does things, and it generally makes
> sense with security updates to do the lot together as they'll be
> mostly the same patches.  For example, the last set had a common
> set for 6 & 7, then two more just for 7 (JSR 292 stuff).  It
> doesn't really make sense for someone to patch 1.11.x while someone
> is patching 1.12.x as work would be duplicated; we generally patch
> one then backport the changeset.
>
> I should probably just change that page to list us both as IcedTea
> maintainers; the whole 'Omair = 1.11" is a bit silly and not even
> reflective of reality.  But I'll check with him first.
>
> Thanks,
>


Just heads up as I'm looking forward to move f19 and rawhide to 2.4, please note, that there have 
been several TCK failures  during last testing of HEAD/2.4pre.

Thanx for keeping IcedTea alive for us:)


J.



More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list