Hi Rafal, 


on my side we are definitely speaking about the V12 patch Cyrillic-ASCII transliteration. Because there was no further change proposed to it I see it as complete. In view of the impending 2.30 release it should probably be committed to the tree sooner than later. 


@Rafal: would you like to go on and commit this V12 patch already?

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. 


Bests,
Egor

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 1:34 AM, Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> wrote:

> 9.07.2019 08:34 Marko Myllynen myllynen@redhat.com wrote:
> 

> > Hi,
> > It seems that we have consensus so is there anything still left with this?
> 

> I think it's helpful to clarify which patches we are talking about.
> I think that these TWO patches should be accepted and pushed:
> 

> 1.  [PATCH v12] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration [BZ #2872]
>     https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-03/msg00378.html
>     

>     It contains Cyrillic to plain ASCII transliteration according to
>     GOST 7.79-2000 System B standard for the C locales
>     

> 2.  [PATCH v9] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration table [BZ #2872]
>     https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-11/msg00369.html
>     

>     It contains Cyrillic to Latin extended transliteration according to
>     ISO 9 standard which is the same as GOST 7.79-2000 System A for almost
>     all locales, plus a fallback to plain ASCII which is as similar as possible
>     to GOST 7.70-2000 System A. However, IMHO one more change is required:
>     the line converting <U0423><U0301> and <U0443><U0301> (Cyrillic U with
>     

> 

> acute, using composition) should be removed, as it was removed in the
> v10 of the patch.
> 

> Why don't I like v10? Because it removes the fallback. The fallback
> is not perfect and does not comply with any standard but it has been
> already stated that the transliteration does not have to be perfect.
> 

> Why these two patches? Because the v12 contains only Cyrillic to plain
> ASCII and only for the C locales while v9 contains Cyrillic to Latin
> extended with an attempt to fallback to plain ASCII for many locales
> but excluding C.
> 

> Additionally, I think we should mention this new feature in NEWS also
> stating that this implementation is not perfect and will never be but
> further works on the issue are expected in future versions.
> 

> > @Egor, do you think the commit message of the latest patch is ok or
> > should it be somehow amended by the recent discussions leading to
> > consensus or is it ok as-is?
> 

> Probably one or two more lines would be nice.
> 

> Regards,
> 

> Rafal