This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Ryan Arnold <rsa at us dot ibm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:08:51 -0400
- Subject: Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- References: <51B65DE4 dot 4010107 at redhat dot com> <CAAHN_R1tqu4j3y-E1wV3NDF9nOTHtU_toiEwgeXLTSamTOtBdw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B68D07 dot 80908 at redhat dot com> <CAAHN_R1h_Xb4GttYcJxADjc-jUKbmggEsbXVcV-Qg7RwQv6fyw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 06/10/2013 11:29 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 11 June 2013 08:05, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I don't know that any of those patches, aside from multiarch PPC32
>> support, warrants waiting.
>
> One additional point.
>
> I had done a rebase of the latest upstream master in Fedora rawhide
> last week and the build threw up a few testsuite failures. Most of
> them seem to be specific to some patches we're carrying in Fedora, but
> I found at least one breakage that may be relevant. Do such testsuite
> failures qualify as blockers or do we consider them on a case by case
> basis?
They don't block the freeze. They may block the release.
We tackle those as bugs fixes during the freeze.
The freeze is intended to stop new non-bug-fix or documentation-fix
changes from going into the branch.
Cheers,
Carlos.