From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50845 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2016 13:14:25 -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 50819 invoked by uid 89); 25 Apr 2016 13:14:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:621, claims X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Subject: Re: expected timeliness on glibc locale fixes To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-locales@sourceware.org, cjlhomeaddress@gmail.com References: <20160418181033.GV5369@vapier.lan> From: Florian Weimer Message-ID: <571E182A.3060901@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160418181033.GV5369@vapier.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00621.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2016 08:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > as we've been merging CLDR data in, a few claims have come up where > the CLDR data is incorrect/out of date. assuming CLDR is incorrect > in these cases, how should we proceed ? should we hot patch in the > request, or wait for the wheels of the CLDR machinations to turn and > then just pick up the next CLDR release ? are there any cases where > the values are so egregiously wrong that we feel "it must be resolved > asap!" ? Does CLDR have a public bug tracker, so that we can see what is coming down the pipe? Florian