This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Fixes for 2.15.1


From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:51:44 -0700

> On 02/23/2012 01:35 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
>> how do we feel about posting reverts to branches when master isn't
>> fixed ?  i'm
>> thinking of this which a bunch of distros are carrying:
>> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-01/msg00002.html
>> the answer is probably "no" ...
> Actually, I doubt the distros are carrying that change.
> 
> The debian based distros are using the C versions of those routines
> because the x86/x86_64 versions have caused numerous problems over
> time.
> 
> Fedora/RHEL have reverted the specific commit for handling EAGAIN.
> It's caused more problems than it fixed.

I think we should be more pragmatic about changes that introduce
regressions.

If we can't figure out the cause or nobody is spending the time to
investigate, just simply revert the change, and revert it immediately.

In fact I think we should revert regression causing changes very
aggressively.

It's superior to just keeping the change in there, and then having
the largest users of the glibc tree simply pull it right back out.
Nobody is testing the code if that is happening, therefore it's
presence in the current sources is absolutely pointless.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]