On 2023-07-12 12:45, Stefan Puiu wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 6:41 PM G. Branden Robinson > <g.branden.robinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> At 2023-07-10T15:59:28+0200, Tomáš Golembiovský wrote: >> >> I believe Alex's preference in the Linux man-pages project is to >> document what is actually implemented, not to repeat normative language >> (paraphrased or not) from the POSIX standard. >> >> So glibc should be tested to verify the behavior it actually exhibits, >> and the language above then updated to describe that, noting any >> deviation from POSIX's prescription. > > At least when Michael Kerrisk was the man-pages maintainer, he would > usually ask for a test program proving that the documentation change > is correct and / or a pointer to the kernel / libc code, where the > behavior could be (hopefully) inferred. I think this is valuable, it > makes it easier to track why a certain change was made, and how the > behavior was observed at that time. If running the same test case > after X years yields a different behavior, it's clear the change that > it triggered no longer stands. It's also fair, I think: the burden of > proof is on the person suggesting the change. Hi Stefan! Thanks for pointing that out! I can only agree with you, and I try maintain that good tradition of Michael. Cheers, Alex > > Just my 2 cents, > Stefan. > >> >> The same can, optionally, be done for other libcs like musl. >> >> Alex, please correct me if I'm mistaken. Hi Branden! I won't correct you either ;) Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> Branden -- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
