This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Propose Allan McRae as 2.19 release manager, and propose end of January 2.19 release.
- From: pinskia at gmail dot com
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 22:05:05 -0800
- Subject: Re: Propose Allan McRae as 2.19 release manager, and propose end of January 2.19 release.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <527D3CBC dot 2010900 at redhat dot com> <527DC881 dot 6090608 at suse dot com> <527DCEC4 dot 8020700 at redhat dot com>
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 9:57 PM, "Carlos O'Donell" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2013 12:30 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2013 08:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> Want to be the release manager for 2.19? :-)
>>> Feel free to say no.
>>> Should we do away with December releases that have us all
>>> scrambling while on vacation to get a release out?
>>> How about an end of January release?
>> I think the question is whether this is a real date or a target that we
>> most probably miss?
>> I'm fine with a *real* January release - but then let's not slip this
>> for weeks,
> Isn't that's a hard call to make without a list of blockers and their
> relative priority and importance to the project?
I think the main blocker for me is getting ilp32 support in glibc 2.19. I have posted the kernel patches but there was some issues with it due to the arm64 maintainer wanting some abi changes. I will be posting some questions here in a few days about the glibc community thoughts about the abi which one is a good idea and why.
> While I agree that we're trying to create a time-boxed release we do
> often consider things "blockers" for the release because we know their
> inclusion will be important to the project for downstream usage and
> In summary: I *always* want to release on the day we commit to :-)