Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>glibc is even worse. It has multiple maintainers, and they still don't
>have enough time to chase down all the important bugs, let alone
>insignificant ones like this.
This is unfortunately true; glibc seems to be severely broken on a
routine basis upstream. Kinda makes me want a new, freshly written C
library, but that's not an easy prospect. :-)
--
However, not having enough time to chase down important bugs is no
excuse for not reviewing simple patches to fix simple bugs, which
doesn't take an awful lot of time at all. (It is a good excuse for not
reviewing complicated or subtle patches.)
For example, bug 12411 is a documentation bug with a very short patch.
Surely some libc maintainer could find the time to say one of the
following:
1. This is fine, committed it.
2. I sent this upstream.
3. Please send this upstream, not to us.
4. This patch doesn't look like an improvement to me, for reason X.
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Reply to: