This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
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. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |