This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: iconvdata regression
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:38:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: iconvdata regression
- References: <20120331.053437.2170377486919118624.davem@redhat.com> <20120331.173213.411657149270174548.davem@davemloft.net> <CADZpyizNRosqEHf_Nn_obD+SV9gHyweSkkxE_ViMNFsTpB3hVg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sunday, April 01, 2012 00:03:59 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:32 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
wrote:
> > From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@systemhalted.org>
> > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:28:04 -0400
> >
> >> Dave, do you have an opinion here?
> >
> > Since the revert is easy folks to do locally, I suppose it's not that
> > big of a deal if it will be addressed properly on Monday.
>
> Do we agree that build breakage is *much* more serious since it
> impacts reg testing?
Yes, I do.
IMO giving a grace period for fixing broken stuff is fine and we should
record what the grace period is - dependend on whether it's a build failure
or a testsuite one. If somebody is actively working on it promptly, I would
not revert for a testsuite failure. I'm also fine with reverting patches.
Btw. I commited for Tulin and did not test all of glibc directly (just run
the testsuite for wcsmbs) and commented that it's broken as well in the
thread.
I can revert the patch if the testsuite fix takes longer,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126