This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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]

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


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