Hello! On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:03:53PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:37:35PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > Did anyone try to get keep-it-building patches applied to glibc during > > the last year? If so, how did they communicate these patches to the > > glibc developers?
I have been discussing Hurd-related glibc patches on the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailing list, and always cced the patches directly to Roland (being the Hurd parts' glibc maintainer) as I got the feeling that he didn't always monitor this bug-hurd mailing list really closely. But if that's fine now and posting (and discussing) the patches directly to / on <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the way to go then that's fine for me, of course. > Samuel Thibault (who did most of the glibc work over the last year, most > notably TLS support) just posted his (and some of Thomas Schwinge's) > patches at libc-alpha, and Roland McGrath promptly committed them, so > this issue is resolved. Before, patches were put into the glibc > bugzilla, which did not work out as well. Thanks to Alfred for > pointing out this communication issue. I wouldn't say there has been a communication issue before. Registering patches in the glibc bugzilla had been made a requirement by the glibc (release) maintainers to get them into the non-HEAD branches, and since that was to a large share what we've been working on, this seemed the most suitable way to publish them, additionally to having published them on the bug-hurd mailing list. But if Roland now can take the time to care for and comment on the Hurd-related patches by having them posted to libc-alpha or directly to him or whatever (just tell us!) then that's fine. Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
