glibc 2.23 --- Hard freeze starting

[Florian Weimer]

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