[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
I have created a ticket to get the new job in hudson
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=401715
regards,
Manuel Garcia
David Dykstal ---23/02/2013 06:25:59---Martin -- I see no problem with backporting the fix to 3.4.2+. There is always a need for a hot fix branch after the "last" ser
David Dykstal <ddykstal.eclipse@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
23/02/2013 06:25
Please respond to
TM project developer discussions <tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
Martin --
I see no problem with backporting the fix to 3.4.2+. There is always a need for a hot fix branch after the "last" service release. I will create the R3_4_maintenance branch on Monday when I get back home.
As you point out we will need to create a new build job for it as well although I'm not entirely sure how to do that yet.
I'll also create the 3.4.2+ and 3.5 versions for bugzilla at that time.
-- Dave
On Thursday, February 21, 2013, Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
Hi Dave,
I’ve just fixed a regression in the TM Terminal which we unfortunately introduced between Juno SR1 and SR2:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=401386
The fix is trivial, and brings up the question whether we can backport into a TM 3.4.2+ stream ?
After all, Juno is an LTS stream and this seems like the perfect candidate for it.
What do you think ? – I guess we’d have to create a new branch in git (R3_4_maintenance),
A Hudson build job, and a 3.4.2+ target milestone in bugzilla.
BTW, a bugzilla “version” for 3.5 would also be a good idea, to indicate defects that are
Discovered in 3.5 milestones … or do you use the “undefined” version for that ?
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
_______________________________________________
tm-dev mailing list
tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-dev


