glibc release process

[Andreas K. Huettel]

> > We have this semi-strict rule in Gentoo that a package version can't enter "Gentoo
> > stable" unless it's been around without significant changes for 4 weeks. One point
> > of it is that no amount of automated testing will catch all bugs in all combinations,
> > but our hordes of happy-go-lucky experimenting users using "Gentoo testing" will very
> > likely stumble on some of them. Just waiting helps to make sure we're good.
> 
> I agree with this, but I took the opposite approach.
> 
> We are integrating glibc master into Fedora Rawhide on a weekly basis to find such
> issues *rather than* at the end of the release cycle.
> 
> > This is why I'm against the speed focus.
> 
> If the time buys additional risk reduction then that's OK.
> 
> But if all targets report back they are good? Then we cut the branch early?
> 

Let's try it.

I mean, we've done it recently too, releasing a bit earlier because everything 
looked good.

Also, in a way we're debating the cake before the eggs are laid... :)

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 981 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20240620/8a12bfa9/attachment-0001.sig>