Re: [issues] Why eglibc does not provide tarball?

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 31 May 2009, Brett Neumeier wrote:

> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > They might be considered release branches, but ones with no releases, just
> > the branches.  There is no preferred point on such a branch other than the
> > tip, and the branchpoint is an intermediate branch-setup state to be
> > avoided for all purposes and not used for any build wanting a stable ABI.
> 
> I see! That makes sense. Can you suggest a heuristic for how long one
> should wait after a branch is created, before considering actual use
> of the branch?

Once the version number on trunk has been increased for development of the 
next version and new symbols have started being exported at the new symbol 
version, and any merge to the branch from FSF GLIBC around the same time 
as the merge of those changes from FSF GLIBC to trunk has been done, it's 
then reasonable to suppose that the branch has a stable ABI.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx