Re: glibc 2.23 --- Hard freeze starting

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>]

On 19-01-2016 16:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/19/2016 06:57 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I thought we had something approximating consensus about adding them,
>>> but Paul Eggert cast this into doubt recently:
>>>
>>>    <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-01/msg00261.html>
>>
>> Yes, I recall that you, Joseph and Carlos were in favor, Roland and I
>> opposed, and Zack thought that if we're going to have these functions at
>> all, they should be bug-for-bug compatible with OpenBSD, which the
>> current proposal is not. This is all off the top of my head and I no
>> doubt have forgotten some details and names, but even so this is not a
>> good consensus.
>>
>> Hard freezes are not the best time to resolve these sorts of things.
>> There should be plenty of time before the next hard freeze rolls around.
> 
> Adhemerval, whats your opinion on this matter (process-wise, not
> necessarily the change in particular)?
> 
> Florian
> 

My understanding is we set a long freeze period (usually a month) to exact
iron out these kind of discussions.  The freeze is exactly to limit discussion
to a limited number of topics to avoid backlog overflow.

But we need to reach consensus at least some significant time before release,
mostly to give time to maintainers actually run significant tests and
verifications.

For this particular issue, since it is a new API it won't add regressions. 
However since it a somewhat visible issue, that generates a lot of traffic
I think we need to reach consensus where until next week, otherwise we
delay to next release.  Objections?