From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41171 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2016 20:13:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 41135 invoked by uid 89); 31 Mar 2016 20:13:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:D*gentoo.org, season, holiday, solid X-HELO: loki.0c3.net Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:13:00 -0000 From: Adam Conrad To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: GNU C Library , Adhemerval Zanella , Mike Frysinger , Allan McRae , "Dmitry V. Levin" , Aurelien Jarno , Khem Raj , Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: glibc 2.24 --- Release on August 1st (hard deadline). Message-ID: <20160331201311.GD28441@0c3.net> References: <56FD2577.6060407@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56FD2577.6060407@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00790.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:26:15AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > This request is not out of line with the expected schedule. The > glibc schedule is nominally February 1st / August 1st (after > having shifted it to avoid the holiday season, starting with 2.19 > in 2014). > > Is everyone OK with an August 1st 2016 release date? Personally, I'd like to see us stick better to a solid release schedule like the above, as it would also help me slot things into the Ubuntu release timelines, so no complaints here. As you point out, it'll make this cycle slightly shorter than 6mo, but if we keep a time-based schedule going forward, it should work well. ... Adam