Re: 2.11 branch status

["Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:50:37PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I did (on x86_64 and i586).  Besides the already reverted commit
> > glibc-2.11.3-40-gc81fb72, I also had to revert commit
> > glibc-2.11.3-33-g522cb50.  The thread starting at
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2011-06/msg00006.html
> > explains what was wrong with the original commit
> > 4bff6e0175ed195871f4e01cc4c4c33274b8f6e3.
> 
> Ok.  Whatever the resolution it seems clear that was not a conservative and
> safe change to backport.  I've reverted it too.

Thanks.

> >From what I can see, 4bff6e01 remains on the trunk and hasn't been fixed
> there or in the 2.14 branch.  Is that so?

Yes, it seems so.  Andreas keeps his version of the change in his
fedora/2.14/master and fedora/master branches, where his commit 675155e
effectively replaces this controversial commit 4bff6e0.


-- 
ldv

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature