This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.24 --- Starting soft/slush freeze discussion
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:29:45 -0300
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.24 --- Starting soft/slush freeze discussion
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <57757DBB.2060404@linaro.org> <20160705190853.GA19033@aurel32.net>
On 05/07/2016 16:08, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2016-06-30 17:14, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As stated in a previous messages the idea is to start soft/slushy freeze mode
>> tomorrow July 1st. There were some discussion about delay it for a week [1],
>> but I see no compelling reasons to do so. As stated by Torvald, the new
>> rwlock implementation will take some more days and he also made no promises.
>> The tunables is something I think we would like to add, but I think we can
>> either drop it again for new release or continue the discussion based on
>> IFUNC enable/disable [2].
>>
>> I will spend some time tomorrow compiling the release blockers for 2.24, so
>> please use this thread as placeholder to discuss them. I would like to
>> have them defined by the end of tomorrow.
>>
>
> Probably a bit late, but I would like to see this bug fixed if possible:
> - https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg01070.html (BZ#19810)
I think this fix is reasonable, since it is a regression from 2.22.
I am just afraid about the backlog we currently have.
>
> Also on the features side, it would be nice to get the ca_ES@valencia
> and de_LI locales, they have already been posted a few months ago, so I
> think they just need a final review:
> - https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg01267.html
> - https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg01266.html
I am not sure about the policy for new locales and I tend to see them
as new features. I know it has been posted some time ago, but I think
we should move them to 2.25.
> Also, is it still find to commit ULPs updates like this one?
> - https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-07/msg00054.html
ULPs are pretty much mechanical changes with current scripts and they
should be update with testing for new release.