From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 54842 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2019 09:45:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-locales-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-locales-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 54695 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2019 09:45:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*x:Mailer, H*UA:Mailer, H*Ad:U*siddhesh, Latin X-HELO: shared-ano163.rev.nazwa.pl X-Spam-Score: -1 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:45:00 -0000 From: Rafal Luzynski To: "Diego (Egor) Kobylkin" Cc: Marko Myllynen , GNU C Library , Carlos O'Donell , Siddhesh Poyarekar , Mike Fabian , "libc-locales@sourceware.org" Message-ID: <1235443329.1748503.1563269912627@poczta.nazwa.pl> In-Reply-To: References: <5e82c576-fcd2-9d2f-6ea8-c1f55d60d19d@redhat.com> <1703613878.71446.1562715288105@poczta.nazwa.pl> Subject: Re: [PING^10][PATCH v12] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration [BZ #2872] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-q3/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 13.07.2019 12:03 "Diego (Egor) Kobylkin" wrote: > [...] > @Rafal: would you like to go on and commit this V12 patch already? Yes but also as my time is limited I'm OK if anybody else does the commit. That means, my "Yes" does not mean "please nobody touch this". While at this, I think that this change should be mentioned in NEWS. > To the V9 patch - my understanding is that we have agreed to handle it as > a new feature because it is actually not fixing [BZ #2872] per se (and V12 > does). I am not going to work on it for 2.30 and if you, Rafal, or someone > else wants to take ownership and push it I'm more than happy to help. OK, so IIUC your goal is to provide Cyrillic to plain ASCII transliteration according to GOST 7.79 System B standard, when the locale is set to C (or any derivative, like C.UTF-8). You don't want ISO 9 a.k.a. GOST 7.79 System A (Cyrillic to Latin extended) with a possible fallback to plain ASCII and in many other locales because you consider this as a separate task which may be done later, not in this release cycle. Is that correct? Regards, Rafal