This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.20 status?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, David Holsgrove <david dot holsgrove at xilinx dot com>, Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>, Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at tilera dot com>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim at kugelworks dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:55:24 -0400
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.20 status?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54071FF4 dot 2090203 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1409031504410 dot 11036 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 09/03/2014 11:06 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> What's the status of 2.20?
>> Are -Wundef fixes and machine maintainer testing
>> all that blocks the release?
> I think the -Wundef fixes are far too risky to include at this point.
> They should go in (once reviewed) early in development for 2.21 so that
> there is plenty of time for any subtle issues to emerge before they enter
> a release. And I don't think we should be blocking things on lack of
> machine status now either; there's been plenty of time for machine
> maintainers to provide their status.
(1) -Wundef fixes.
The release is delayed for several reasons including summer vacations,
slow release maintainer response (see previous point), and a desire
to have the mechanical -Wundef fixes completed as part of 2.20.
Fixing -Wundef in 2.20 was purely a psychological mind-game we played
with ourselves. I don't think we have to checkin any more -Wundef
fixes unless we think they are OK, and I agree they should not block
I'll re-raise this point in another email.
(2) Machine status.
I'd like to see NACK's from the machine matainers at a minimum that
they do *not* care about 2.20 enough to test their machines.
For example Chris seems to want 2.20 to have tile support and is
hoping to have the issue fixed today.
I'm about to commit Roland's changes from his nptl-hppa branch
which touches only hppa and lets me post build results.