[PATCH v12] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration [BZ #2872] ping for 2.30

[Egor Kobylkin]

Carlos,
are you comfortable to pick this up again this month?

I would really love to have a reliable action plan to get this committed 
for 2.30. Maybe cut out a subset that is undisputed and commit only that 
first. It looks kinda like an eternal moving target otherwise.

for you reference:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00036.html
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00040.html

Bests,
Egor Kobylkin

On 09.01.19 21:03, Marko Myllynen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/01/2019 02.46, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>> On 07.01.19 21:37, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2019 23.12, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good catch! Should we maybe split this into two patches, one for C and
>>>> the other for "country" locales? They have different codes and
>>>> functionality so it looks like it would be easier to keep focus.
>>>
>>> That would probably make sense, the standard C/POSIX locale won't
>>> support System A so it also narrows down solution alternatives with it.
>>>
>>>> "Country" locales in localedata/locales/ can then have the exact same
>>>> translit table included or they can have any other flavor - I don't see
>>>> a problem here.
>>>
>>> Indeed, and since those files are not limited to ASCII, perhaps we could
>>> now reconsider the v9 approach for them, i.e., prefer System A if
>>> possible, otherwise use System B / ASCII (just need to make sure that
>>> the ASCII fall-back for them will match the built-in C ASCII rule)?
>>
>> Happy to hear the split seems to be a clear cut one.
>> How about I rename the "[PATCH v12]...[BZ #2872]" to "[PATCH v1]...
>> C/POSIX [BZ #2872]" and the "[PATCH v9]" gets its own bug-report
>> (number) and title for clarity in communication?
> 
> I'm not sure is a new BZ really needed for such an addition, perhaps a
> NEWS entry might be more appropriate (with the full details explained in
> the commit messages of course) but I'll leave this to others to decide.
> 
>> This way it would probably be easier to have the decision making process
>> tied up for both patches (separately). We may want to get the v12 POSIX
>> out of the door in 2.30 then and can take all the time we need to set up
>> the rules for "Countries" locales as you need them to be.
> 
> Perhaps Rafal or Carlos have better suggestions but I would think we
> could have a patch series where the patch 1/3 adds the C/POSIX locale
> part (that would be what you posted as v12), then patch 2/3 adds
> translit_cyrillic (based on your v9 so supports ISO 9.1995 / GOST 7.79
> System A and GOST 7.79 System B as a fall-back (which would match the
> C/POSIX rules)), and finally the patch 3/3 updates locales to use
> translit_cyrillic as appropriate. But as said, Rafal or Carlos may have
> alternative suggestions so it might be best to wait for their feedback
> before doing anything yet (it's unfortunate you've had to do so many
> iterations around this already but I think we've all learned something
> during the process and the end result will be more correct than any of
> the earlier versions).
> 
> Thanks,
>