From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 57259 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2017 02:31:08 -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 57246 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jun 2017 02:31:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=judge, letter, opportunity, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: smtp.pacific.net Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH v5 0/3] manual: Header & Standards Cleanup To: GNU C Library References: <20170519093353.6158-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <20170526045850.30455-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <860ff1c4-14a2-4df7-306b-2cf10e915f20@pacific.net> Cc: Zack Weinberg , Joseph Myers , Carlos O'Donell , Michael Kerrisk From: Rical Jasan Message-ID: <50f89511-0196-525f-1168-57f98ba947df@pacific.net> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 02:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00338.txt.bz2 On 06/08/2017 06:41 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I would like to see this go in, and I think the most important blocker > is that someone who knows from Perl should review the scripts. > Unfortunately, that someone is not me. I'd also like to mention the completion patches are mostly ready too (annotating everything that currently isn't). They were a part of v[12], but the current approach was suggested at that point (gain consensus/acceptance for the @standards conversion first), so the patchset changed in scope (may have been better to not make that v3, but I had recently discovered --in-reply-to...). Point being, if this gets reviewed soon, there's an opportunity to have the entire manual documented wrt. headers and standards in 2.26. Since it seems @standards has consensus and just needs the Perl review, and there may be more reviewers available to quickly judge the correctness of headers and standards, I could submit them now and either defer committing until this patchset goes in or just commit them as @comments, which will be automatically converted by the conversion script in this patchset anyway. I would prefer to submit as @standards to provide more opportunity for a preview of what that will look like, even if they get converted to @comments if committed first. (It's fine if that's not acceptable, though, for reasons like marking the patches as committed in Patchwork even though they took a different form; I'm not sure how letter- vs. spirit-of-the-law Patchwork is.) Rical