On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> However the previous problem(s -- multiple) was glibc using >> non-Rawhide for integration testing, especially just while we were >> trying to stablise Fedora for a release: >> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158440.html >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158662.html > > We're absolutely not going to rebase master in non-rawhide. Our > intention is to get glibc 2.20 release out before Fedora turns beta. > >> But 2.20 is a stable branch, right? So this shouldn't be a concern >> now. > > Yes, it is in what we call, a slushy freeze right now. Changes going > in are mostly regression fixes and other fixes that should not have > any generated code impact. There is however one change that the s/390 > folks will find painful - s/390 broke ABI in 2.19 without a proper > justification and that is now going to be reverted in 2.20 (and in > 2.19, but we don't really care about 2.19 right now). To expand on this just a bit, the s/390 ABI break was done by the s/390 glibc port maintainers and was done intentionally. This wasn't a "oops, we accidentally broke the ABI" bug. It was something the s/390 maintainers decided was of minimal concern and it turns out they were wrong. In my experience, glibc goes above and beyond maintaining their software. This s/390 incident is an anomaly in an otherwise very controlled and well-run software project. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
