Re: Linux vs. libio

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM> writes:

> This may be an example of such a pinch.  The new ABI has to be tested.
> Requiring all testers to rebuild their glibc means that there will be
> a lot less testing, meaning a lower-quality release.

I haven't suggested that.  What I said is that no changes should be
checked into areas of the gcc cvs tree that we don't own (such as
texinfo and any libc parts of libio) unless either (a) it has first
been checked into the "upstream" master source tree, or (b) is marked
very clearly as a local/temporary kludge.  The former is much to be
preferred.  I certainly don't want to require people to re-build
glibc, unless they have a glibc *snapshot* and *want to* re-build
everything.

This is similar to the policy Cygnus has (had) for gcc: Nothing should
be in the Cygnus internal cvs tree unless it is also in the external
tree, or marked with special markers in the code.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/