This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com 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]

Formalising and documenting the current locale maintenance regime?


I believe it is a good idea to formalise and document the current
locale maintenance regime.  Do you agree?  This is how I understand
it:

At the moment, there is a set of people associated with each locale.
It is the original author, and the people contributing to the locale.
It is always a good idea to get these people to approve all change
requests, before asking for the change to be done in the glibc CVS.

All change requests should be backed by some reference documenting
that the change is correct.  I still do not understand the range of
references accepted, but official standards from some language council
seem to be well received.

New locales are accepted at face value, and the submitter is assumed
to know what he is doing.  All new locales must use language and
country codes from ISO 639-[12] and ISO 3166.  If a submitter is
unable to convince the ISO standard maintainers that the language or
country exist, the glibc maintainers are not interested.

Is this a correct summary of how things work?

I suggest adding such information to some document in glibc, and
making a list of the people associated with each locale.  This list of
people is the "sub-maintainers" of the given locale, and will be
responsible for forwarding change requests to the glibc maintainers.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]