This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 2/3 elf] Add MicroBlaze support to elf.h
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Yet I find it easy to quantify how much harm is done by
> not working on P2 bugs for 2.17 (opportunity cost paid
> by working on something else).
>
> Thus when I balance "Potential future harm because
> feature X is not in 2.17" versus "Potential future harm
> done by bug fix X not in 2.17", I always find the latter
> is more important.
>
> How do these two balance out in your own judgement?
I believe that new ports not requiring architecture-independent changes
beyond elf.h / config.sub / config.guess (and NEWS, and README ... README
is currently missing any mention of AArch64) should generally be free to
go in at any time; the benefits of the port outweigh the negligible risks
from the elf.h changes, and the port needs reviewing anyway (a freeze
should not be a freeze on reviews at all).
In this case, I found changes on reviewing the port that should be
implemented in a more generic way that *would* be risky during the freeze,
so indicating delaying the port itself until 2.18 (but with review of both
the port and the generic changes still going on during the freeze,
hopefully for commit after 2.17 branches).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com