This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
glibc 2.23 -- Hard freeze follow ups
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:07:03 -0200
- Subject: glibc 2.23 -- Hard freeze follow ups
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
Following the initial 2.23 hard freeze starting discussion, this thread
is to discuss current blockers and desirables features and considerations
I think Roland has summarized a good strategy on how to consider a block
and a desirable features, so I will reproduce it here (with some adjustments).
I also plan to update the release wiki with these points:
1. Known release blockers: these are bugs that it's important enough to
fix that we don't want to make a release without them fixed. For
anything that is not a build breakage or a user-visible bug (e.g. new
functions, new features, internal revamps that don't directly fix
blocker bugs), then it should *not* be considerer as a blocker.
1.1. One acceptable exceptions are cases of pathological
performance in some use case that matters, or nontrivial
performance regressions from a past release.
1.2. Another acceptable exception is new functions that's required
to work with other GNU packages like GCC or Binutils that will
be released before the next libc release cycle.
2. Important features/fixes: these are changes that are desirable
enough for some reason that it's plausibly worthwhile to destabilize
the tree a bit for their sake. The main characteristic these have is
that the release manager and maintainer consensus are relatively
easily convinced that we should allow changes in after a freeze was
They are *not* blockers and usually after hard freeze announcement
it should be allowed up to maximum of 2 weeks before the branch
creation to patch being sorted out and pushed upstream.
3. Nice to have: These are changes that are desirable enough that they
should have higher priority than other things not in one of these
three categories. They do not rise to the level of importance
necessary to risk destabilization during freezy times.
Based on that I have changes:
* "[BZ #19329] Fix race between tls allocation at thread creation and dlopen"
moved to 2.24.
* Add tunables framework: moved to desirable.
It means in practice that the tunables framework will have until next Feb 6th
to get in a good shape and testing for inclusion. I plan to review in following
days I would like to ask the other reviews to so as well.
The next Feb 6 is also the final deadline freeze date, so I won't expect nothing
but critical CVE to being pushed.
Comments or objections?