This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.20 status?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at tilera dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, 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>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim at kugelworks dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:02:38 +0000
- 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> <540732C4 dot 3030305 at tilera dot com>
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Summer vacation certainly got in the way of 2.20 responsiveness for me, and
> perhaps others were similarly affected?
Any release dates will be inconvenient for someone. I think a month's
freeze is sufficient (and a month's slush followed by a month's freeze
excessive); you can always make sure things are in good shape for an
architecture before going away (even though if that's before the freeze,
late changes might well break things), and there is no requirement that it
must be the architecture maintainer who does the release testing.
Being away at the start of this July, I was expecting that the present
freeze would be mostly over by the time I was back and that it was my
responsibility to get ARM and MIPS testing done promptly in the limited
time left - not that we'd still be in slush then with the freeze not
having started, or that the freeze would be prolonged because of not
having ensured the testing was done on time.
If a serious problem does show up for an architecture that wasn't tested
during the freeze, there is always the option of a .1 release, although we
haven't been doing point releases lately (but I think we should do them
more routinely - also time-based - if we can get to a point where the
release branches and the backports on them are useful to multiple
Joseph S. Myers