This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Wiki discussion of standards conformance issues
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:20:36 -0500
- Subject: Re: Wiki discussion of standards conformance issues
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401292228510 dot 24633 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 01/29/2014 05:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I've added a section
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master#Standards_conformance>
> to the wiki todo list discussing standards conformance issues in glibc.
>
> Does anyone have comments on the question of marking conformance bugs in
> Bugzilla (my suggestion is keywords std-c90, std-posix2008, etc.,
> indicating that a bug is related to conformance to a given standard - not
> necessarily that it's a conformance bug, as it might relate to a missing
> optional feature)?
>
> Where the wiki page list links to a past discussion, which in turn links
> to other past discussions, it would be useful it someone could extract all
> the possibly-not-fully-resolved conformance-related issues from those
> discussions and ensure they go in appropriately tagged Bugzilla bugs or on
> the wiki page (items where it still needs to be worked out whether there
> is a current problem could also go on the wiki page).
Having bugs in the bugzilla for conformance bugs, appropriately marked
with agreed upon keyword, sounds good to me.
Any new bugs I file that are conformance related I'll mark with a new
keyword (after adding such a keyword to bugzilla).
Are there any keywords you'd like me to add?
Cheers,
Carlos.