From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85508 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2016 18:28:27 -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 85465 invoked by uid 89); 22 Feb 2016 18:28:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=REQUIRED X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:28:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Carlos O'Donell CC: Adhemerval Zanella , GNU C Library Subject: Re: Release manager for glibc 2.24? In-Reply-To: <56CB18C9.20906@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <56CB1694.6070904@redhat.com> <7F9D140C-D395-4A78-AB4A-C98F5C60560A@linaro.org> <56CB18C9.20906@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00684.txt.bz2 On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > You did a great job. The fault lies entirely with my confused documentation > of the release process, I have added some more [REQUIRED] and [OPTIONAL] > markers at every step to clarify what needs to be done and what can be skipped > given time constraints. I think you need markers to say more prominently what the times at which things are needed are. For example, that libc.pot should be regenerated and a snapshot sent to the TP immediately after the freeze (it's no good if that section isn't noticed until the final release is being made). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com