This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
RE: GNU C LIbrary 2.21 freeze date -- January 9th.
- From: "Melik-Adamyan, Areg" <areg dot melik-adamyan at intel dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, "Senkevich, Andrew" <andrew dot senkevich at intel dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Zamyatin, Igor" <igor dot zamyatin at intel dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:05:23 +0000
- Subject: RE: GNU C LIbrary 2.21 freeze date -- January 9th.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54AC3FB0 dot 4040701 at redhat dot com> <D373487E0338A646909492FF43BA8BE329748F8F at CDSMSX102 dot ccr dot corp dot intel dot com> <54AD27E5 dot 5050406 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1501071310150 dot 24704 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <D373487E0338A646909492FF43BA8BE32974902B at CDSMSX102 dot ccr dot corp dot intel dot com> <54B33A50 dot 1040700 at redhat dot com>
Yes, we are moving to 2.22.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos O'Donell [mailto:carlos@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 6:07 AM
> To: Senkevich, Andrew; Joseph Myers
> Cc: GNU C Library; Zamyatin, Igor; Melik-Adamyan, Areg
> Subject: Re: GNU C LIbrary 2.21 freeze date -- January 9th.
>
> On 01/07/2015 09:02 AM, Senkevich, Andrew wrote:
> >>> On 01/07/2015 07:04 AM, Senkevich, Andrew wrote:
> >>>> what about to postpone freeze date?
> >>>>
> >>>> Intel has signed new copyright agreement with FSF and currently lawyer
> from FSF is working on finalization.
> >>>> As I know it must be ready very soon. Now it blocks libmvec patches
> series.
> >>>
> >>> And now the question you should be expecting from me: How long do you
> need?
> >>>
> >>> Please remember that glibc operates on time-boxed releases, with the
> >>> goal being to make frequent stable releases for the distributions to
> consume.
> >>>
> >>> Are all of the libmvec patches in a state that they would be ready
> >>> to commit when the authorization from the FSF arrives?
> >
> >> I was waiting for consensus on the ABI documentation before reviewing
> >> the final patches. Have there been public statements from GCC / LLVM
> >> / ICC maintainers agreeing that the proposed ABI documentation
> >> describes how they intend to interpret the OpenMP pragmas on x86_64?
> If not, you need to work on pushing things to consensus in those communities.
> >
> > Joseph, no such statements from maintainers were published now, but no
> objections also.
> >
> > Carlos, I think 2.5 week from today will be enough. Is it ok?
>
> No it's not OK. We should never rush ABI consensus work.
>
> I would strongly suggest we move this into 2.22 and check it in as soon as we
> have ABI consensus.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.