Re: glibc 2.23 --- Hard freeze starting

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On 19 Jan 2016 21:50, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > My understanding is we set a long freeze period (usually a month) to exact
> > iron out these kind of discussions.  The freeze is exactly to limit discussion
> > to a limited number of topics to avoid backlog overflow.
> 
> I think the freeze is to allow plenty of time for architecture maintainers 
> to test for their architectures and fix problems found (so that it 
> shouldn't, for example, be a problem if some architecture maintainers are 
> away at the start of the freeze period) - and potentially for any extra 
> testing people wish to run while changes likely to invalidate it shouldn't 
> be going in.  Not for adding new architecture-independent ABIs or other 
> changes that strongly indicate architecture maintainers should revalidate 
> (any new ABI means architecture maintainers should at least confirm the 
> ABI tests still pass).

agreed.  while it's annoying when your patchset missed another window, i
don't think we should be allowing any changes like this w/out a very good
reason.  freezes are for stabilizing/testing/validating, not for slipping
your pet projects in at the last minute (this is a generalization and is
not directed at anyone in particular -- i'd point out that i have one or
two patches that i wish would have made this release).

it's not like we won't have another release in the future.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature