On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) > <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Ping on my question at the end of this mail >>> Do you have an idea of how long the review process might take? > > Given Alex's work I would estimate anywhere between 6 months and a > year for a single person to review all the functions. > > The work had a narrow scope in order to complete on those timelines. > For functions that were known either to be safe, or known to be > unsafe, we made a judgement call at the time to review them or not. > You can see this by looking at the per-function safety comments. > Functions that were not documented were not reviewed, but those > missing functions were added as comments in the documentation i.e. > look for "@c FIXME these are undocumented:". There are 18 functions in > filesys.texi, 9 in libdl.texi, 118 in threads.texi, and 2 in > users.texi which are not documented and thus were skipped in this > first round. I did not want their lack of documentation to stall this > work. > > I am happy to see stubs in place in the glibc manual for all of the > undocumented functions, and I'm happy to see the stubs have safety > notations. Hi Carlos, Maybe you have misunderstood my point. I don't expect Peng Haitao and his colleagues to repeat Alexandre's work, but I am hoping that he might compare the glibc annotations with the man-pages annotations, and account for the differences/make fixes as needed. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
