This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Clean up glibc version numbers in manual
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Sorry, you're just wrong. It is entirely reasonable to expect that I be
> consulted on core issues of glibc maintenance. It is also entirely
I wouldn't call version numbers and dates in the manual "core issues of
glibc maintenance".
> during which I don't respond to glibc issues. There was no urgency in
> making any of these changes, and so no excuse for cutting short the usual
> collaborative process.
For fixing typos, and things that should obviously have been updated at
the same time as something else but were forgotten, I think the right
"usual collaborative process" is "commit and post and hope people will be
less likely to forget those updates in future". And that's what the
libc.texinfo changes looked like to me - obvious forgotten updates in the
context of the fact that this was just part of a whole series of patches
fixing miscellaneous issues in the manual (where this particular patch
seemed to be the best one to attach them to).
As for the install.texi changes (which you didn't object to), they had
already received comment from Jeff Bailey (which it appears didn't reach
the list because of an HTML part in his email, though my reply did reach
the list, quoting all the substance of his reply) and from Marek Polacek
interested in cleaning up parts of support for old compiler versions, and
there were no objections to the changes themselves, just comments on other
things that might be cleaned up as well. And when there is interest in
having one cleanup build on another cleanup - in ways such that the text
of the two cleanup patches is likely to interact - I think that *does*
make it more desirable to get the first cleanup in quickly, on the basis
that things can be refined later if needed.
This was not a patch at all likely to cause any subtle breakage. It had
been tested more than some past manual patches had been (at one point
"make pdf" was broken for a long time, I think years). The installation
documentation was extremely outdated and still needs a long series of
patches to get it into reasonable shape. Not everyone building and
installing glibc is an expert - system integrators have to start as
beginners at some point - and we can do a much better job of installation
documentation through a series of patches all of which are straightforward
but some conceivably have someone, somewhere concerned about some detail
of how they are expressed. (Where the patches do actually change the
versions of tools accepted by configure, not just the manual, I do think
in that case it is appropriate to wait longer for discussion and actual
approval of the patch.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com