This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.23 --- Hard freeze starting
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:54:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.23 --- Hard freeze starting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <569D4A42 dot 7030006 at linaro dot org> <569D61E9 dot 1080501 at redhat dot com> <569D6754 dot 4080300 at redhat dot com> <569DD058 dot 6060500 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <569E7AE1 dot 1080201 at redhat dot com> <569E8894 dot 3040607 at linaro dot org> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601192147100 dot 27749 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20160119223132 dot GM14840 at vapier dot lan>
On 01/19/2016 11:31 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.
In the light of these comments, I have removed the strlcpy/strlcat
decision as a blocker.
On a happier note, I got the missing CVE assignments from MITRE and
put them into Bugzilla.
Florian