This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PING] [PATCH v5 0/3] manual: Header & Standards Cleanup
- From: Rical Jasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>
- To: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 19:31:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH v5 0/3] manual: Header & Standards Cleanup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CAKCAbMgunij7mxD=rQepBxkYOFG-ZUtKw+SmSR3WsNjZ5XyCag@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/08/2017 06:41 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I would like to see this go in, and I think the most important blocker
> is that someone who knows from Perl should review the scripts.
> Unfortunately, that someone is not me.
I'd also like to mention the completion patches are mostly ready too
(annotating everything that currently isn't). They were a part of
v, but the current approach was suggested at that point (gain
consensus/acceptance for the @standards conversion first), so the
patchset changed in scope (may have been better to not make that v3, but
I had recently discovered --in-reply-to...).
Point being, if this gets reviewed soon, there's an opportunity to have
the entire manual documented wrt. headers and standards in 2.26. Since
it seems @standards has consensus and just needs the Perl review, and
there may be more reviewers available to quickly judge the correctness
of headers and standards, I could submit them now and either defer
committing until this patchset goes in or just commit them as @comments,
which will be automatically converted by the conversion script in this
I would prefer to submit as @standards to provide more opportunity for a
preview of what that will look like, even if they get converted to
@comments if committed first. (It's fine if that's not acceptable,
though, for reasons like marking the patches as committed in Patchwork
even though they took a different form; I'm not sure how letter- vs.
spirit-of-the-law Patchwork is.)