Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas
At Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:25:27 -0400,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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.
Especially for glibc, you should know we everytime need to verify
whether the submitted patch is really ok or not.
Quick check through the bug, actually #12411 says it relates to
#28250. And at least I think #28250 is not bug. SUSv3 does not
define printf should return ENOSPC. Stdio is buffering function.
There are some discussions, but I think #28250 can be ignored for the
current spec. I think #28250 is difficult to apply, but #12411 can be
separated from this issue.
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: