This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:36:07 +0000
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52E649BF dot 5020400 at archlinux dot org> <20140128205657 dot 16DBA74438 at topped-with-meat dot com> <52E9DEB7 dot 4000709 at redhat dot com> <52E9E84F dot 50907 at redhat dot com> <52EA682D dot 90900 at archlinux dot org> <ormwid428y dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2014, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> > Any other issues that need tracking missing from that list?
>
> I'm not sure where the MTASC safety docs patchset fits in this, but
> several of the patches are in, and a number of others are pending review
> and should be in over the next few days. I hoped we'd have the patchset
> all in by now, but the process has been slower than anticipated.
I thought this documentation was incomplete anyway - that you hadn't
completed reviewing the properties of every function in glibc - or is the
latest version in fact complete?
I'd think backporting to 2.19 branch any documentation that doesn't make
the cut-off for the release should be fine. (Though we haven't yet
managed to do particularly well with handling release branches after
release. They should have most or all of the bug-fix patches distributors
find themselves backporting, but they tend to have a fairly random set of
bug fixes. And I'd tend to think occasional point releases from branches
would be a good idea, but we haven't had any since 2.14.1.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com