Release branch pull-up requests are the mechanism by which developers request changes to be pulled up to a release branch after the source tree has been branched for release, and by which they request that changes be pulled up for subsequent patch releases. These requests are sent to us, the release engineering team, so that the changes to the release branch can be carefully monitored, and quality can be maintained.
As of NetBSD 1.6, pull-up requests are sent to a branch-specific email address.
Policy issues or general questions for the Release Engineering team can go to releng@NetBSD.org.
Specific release issues/concerns should go to the appropriate list:
This page gives guidelines for pull-up requests. Explained this way, it probably seems like pull-up requests are a lot of work. In a sense, they are. Before you submit a pull-up request, you should have verified it and tested it, and you should have a good understanding of what is changing. However, that's work you've already done before you should even think about submitting the request. The only additional work is documenting that information for us. There's no point in making us figure all of that information from scratch, when you already know it and can easily pass it along to us.
If multiple revisions of a file are to be pulled up, include a full copy of each of the emails sent to source-changes@NetBSD.org. The changes in the specified revisions will be pulled up to the release branch.
Please do not submit requests like "everything up to revision N," or "make it match -current." Requests like this are more difficult because releng needs to figure out the starting revision for the pull-up (for the commit message). That can be complicated by other revisions having been pulled up, for instance. It's better to have the person requesting the pull-up do that, because they already know what they want pulled up. Also, in the latter example, there's the possibility that someone will commit something to the file between the time that the request is made and the time that it is processed, which may lead to insufficiently-tested changes being pulled up.
If there are conflicts involving anything other than RCS IDs the pull-up request will be rejected and you will be asked to resubmit it.
The patch file will be applied with patch. If any special instructions are necessary to apply the patch, they should be included in the pull-up request.
If there are any conflicts at all, the pull-up request will be rejected and you will be asked to resubmit it.
In general, it's best if all of the file and revision information is placed together, near the beginning of the pull-up request. It shouldn't be necessary to dig through a huge patch to figure out what steps to take. Additionally, if a patch really is just the difference between two revisions and applies cleanly, that should be noted (and a patch to do the same thing should be omitted).
From: Matthias Scheler <tron@NetBSD.org> To: "NetBSD 1. 6 Pullup Requests" <pullup-1-6@NetBSD.org> Cc: un-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@NetBSD.org> Subject: Urgent sendmail security fix Hello, "sendmail" needs a security fix. Please pullup the following two changes (more instructions below): -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Module Name: src Committed By: itojun Date: Wed Sep 17 14:16:23 UTC 2003 Modified Files: src/gnu/dist/sendmail/sendmail: parseaddr.c Log Message: fix prescan() bug (potentially remotely exploitable), CAN-2003-0694 To generate a diff of this commit: cvs rdiff -r1.12 -r1.13 src/gnu/dist/sendmail/sendmail/parseaddr.c -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Module Name: src Committed By: tron Date: Wed Sep 17 20:23:02 UTC 2003 Modified Files: src/gnu/dist/sendmail/sendmail: version.c Log Message: Bump version number after parse8.359.2.8 patch has been applied. To generate a diff of this commit: cvs rdiff -r1.13 -r1.14 src/gnu/dist/sendmail/sendmail/version.c -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The change to "version.c" will cause a conflict. I've therefore attached a patch for this file. Thanks in advanceIn detail:
|
|