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] |
On Sat 09 Aug 2014 09:30:23 Allan McRae wrote: > On 09/08/14 01:23, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 8 August 2014 20:41, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Allan McRae wrote: > >>> * blockers > >>> > >>> - -Wundef (is there place to track the status of this?) > >> > >> I see no sign of any activity on this in the past week. We're more than > >> a > >> month behind schedule - can we please just freeze? Freeze delays should > >> only be for something user-visible - not anything purely internal about > >> build warnings - and only where there is significant active work (if it's > >> freeze time and there are unresolved problems with a recent change and no > >> active work on fixing them, the default should be to revert the change > >> and > >> work getting it back for the following release). -Wundef should not have > >> occasioned a freeze delay unless patches posted *by the end of June* were > >> substantially complete and satisfactory for resolving all the warnings, > >> with only a few revisions needed following review. > > > > I had taken up responsibility for this and I've now narrowed it to two > > changes: one to the IS_IN_* scheme and the other for the _POSIX_* > > macros. I've been working on them on and off last week in between a > > lot of NMIs, but I don't have anything useful to show yet. > > > > Roland and I had agreed at the Cauldron that we ought to get this > > closed in 2.20 lest it remains languishing forever, but if there's > > disagreement on that then maybe it needs to be discussed. Either way, > > I can commit to not letting them languish too long after 2.20 even if > > 2.20 freezes right now if that helps. > > I had kept this as a blocker based on Roland and Carlos pushing for it. > There needs to be input from them on this before I remove it. > > Note that the s/390 ABI blocker was only fixed a week ago so we are not > delay much specifically by this yet. Also, any real freeze was not going > to happen until after Cauldron. I'm cutting a tarball today to get the > translation in progress. i'm guessing that doesn't actually impact the release tarball. i need the ehdr fix in, and i pinged you on a few other patches. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |