Retrospective on glibc 2.34 and glibc 2.35 release.

[Joseph Myers]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha wrote:

> In order to support these ABI changes I wonder if we don't need a specific
> window within the release like "Month 1: ABI" where we focus on this theme
> of getting new ABIs into the first month of development? There is a similarity
> here with respect to gcc's staged development.

I don't think we need such a short period for getting new ABIs in.  Five 
months for general development and one month for stablization and testing 
should be fine if we return to having a proper release freeze with no 
major architecture-independent changes, whether or not they affect ABIs, 
in at least the last two weeks of the freeze (unless significant problems 
with a new ABI are discovered late, in which case the normal expectation 
should be to remove it from the release and reconsider in fixed form for 
the next release).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com