From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 646A93858CDA for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 09:07:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 646A93858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1680167272; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Lrx5eucbG79sYObyHR6QvKQXu5P2bnVtDbHJX8+/1fc=; b=N8HB8LtR4UquOv9mkkXs9E9AVuzDF6l25BrG0yABsfPuuTPXW25xb4gHey9tNpZ6pBU2mo yZXmhY7/1A8us8TOlfdDYqsZWjBQm0zO8UChZg9EM+ujvHY8Vu6gHkY7CfF3k9CEJo5mf5 0YbV1Wj+IbbO3BhC9SKl7E6ocNsQuyA= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-516-vxrCeEvROSmBkHcFFs28QQ-1; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 05:07:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: vxrCeEvROSmBkHcFFs28QQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D9F0380673B; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 09:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from calimero.vinschen.de (unknown [10.39.192.15]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF9F18EC2; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 09:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id A6F21A8063F; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 11:07:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 11:07:46 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: newlib@sourceware.org Cc: Tobias Burnus Subject: Re: Newlib's .texi docs - outdated version number/date Message-ID: Reply-To: newlib@sourceware.org Mail-Followup-To: newlib@sourceware.org, Tobias Burnus References: <2fb28796-c14d-e02a-a989-bbc0a7994399@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2fb28796-c14d-e02a-a989-bbc0a7994399@codesourcery.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mar 30 09:28, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Someone over here stumbled over the version/date mismatch between what is shown > in the libc/libm manuals - and what is the current newlib release. > > I think it makes sense to bump the version + date of the two files for the release, > alongside the other version bumps done for the release. Namely, I think it should have > been part of the commit: > commit 9e09d6ed83cce4777a5950412647ccc603040409 (tag: newlib-4.3.0) > Bump up newlib to 4.3.0 > > Currently, there is the following (I think the first one is okayish > as it does not refer to the newlib version): > > libgloss/doc/porting.texi > @subtitle Spring 1995 > > newlib/libc/libc.texi > @subtitle @code{libc} 2.5.0 > @subtitle December 2016 > > newlib/libm/libm.texi > @subtitle @code{libm} 2.5.0 > @subtitle December 2016 > > The last textual change to libc was mid 2021, the last janitorial/re-org changes were > at the end of last year. Thus, blindly bumping the version/date seems to be at least more > consistent than not updating it at all. > > Thoughts? Sounds good. Please send a patch in git format-patch style. Thanks, Corinna