Re: 2.26 freeze in a little over a week

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 06/23/2017 03:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday 22 June 2017 11:18 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> We're not upstream in Linux yet, we're also in the process of submitting
>>> patches.  We've been through two rounds of review of the ABI on the Linux
>>> mailing list and there weren't any comments the second time.
>>>
>>> We've committed to maintaining ABI stability with the first one to get released
>>> (which would be glibc if we can get into 2.26).
>>
>> We usually wait for the kernel bits to go in before releasing a glibc
>> with the new ABI, but I'll defer to Carlos, Joseph, etc. on that.
>>
>> Provided that is clear, I think it should be safe to continue reviewing
>> the patchset until about a week or two before the release date
>> (tentatively 1 Aug) and then take a call on whether it is ready or needs
>> to be pushed to 2.27.  Given that it does not interact with other
>> architecture code, their testing should not get affected.
> 
> I'm wary of adding new ports without a clear timescale when we can expect 
> them to be buildable with build-many-glibcs.py using normal upstream 
> sources of other components.
> 
> Has the Linux kernel port been accepted subject to at most minor changes 
> relative to the latest version, with good reason to expect it will be in 
> Linux 4.13?  Is the port in linux-next, or will it be within the next 
> month?  If the glibc port won't be buildable with Linux 4.13, that's 
> leaving a long time with a new port people can't build when making bulk 
> changes.
 
I agree with Joseph.

We need to see some fairly clear intent from the Linux kernel side before
adopting a new port, and we like the kernel side to land first before
glibc. This ensures the ABI work is done with time.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.