PING Re: [PATCH v12] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration [BZ #2872] ping for 2.30

[Egor Kobylkin <egor@kobylkin.com>]

On 11.03.19 14:59, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04.03.19 23:11, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>> ping
>>
>> On 14.02.19 17:48, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>>> Hi Carlos, Mike, Rafal,
>>>
>>> It seems clear that you all are currently too busy to have a look at
>>> this but would you have any estimate when you might be able to review
>>> this so that we could consider merging?
>>>
>>> FWIW, I chatted with Egor off-list and we're on the same page wrt the
>>> following, hopefully this gives you a bit off jump start for this
>>> subject when you have time to dig deeper:
>>>
>>> 1) Built-in C locale doesn't read/use any translit_* files and it can't
>>> have any fallback mechanisms and it only supports ASCII so using GOST
>>> 7.79 System B in locale/C-translit.h.in (as per patch v12) would seem to
>>> be the appropriate way to implement Cyrillic transliteration for the
>>> built-in C locale (it adds some 8KB to the binary).
>>>
>>> 2) Other locales read/use translit_* files and with them fallbacks and
>>> non-ASCII are possible so it would seem preferable to first try ISO 9 /
>>> GOST 7.79 System A and only if that fails then use GOST 7.79 System B
>>> (in which case the end result should match with the built-in C locale).
>>> For this the translit_cyrillic file should be added (as per patch v9 +
>>> changes mentioned in patches v10 and v12).
>>>
>>> 3) Individual locale files can then be updated to use translit_cyrillic
>>> as appropriate (see patch v9) and language/national specific conventions
>>> (e.g., SFS 4900 for fi_FI) can be applied on per-locale basis.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2019 09.14, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>>>> Carlos,
>>>> are you comfortable to pick this up again this month?
>>>>
>>>> I would really love to have a reliable action plan to get this 
>>>> committed
>>>> for 2.30. Maybe cut out a subset that is undisputed and commit only 
>>>> that
>>>> first. It looks kinda like an eternal moving target otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> for you reference:
>>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00036.html
>>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00040.html
>>>>
>>>> Bests,
>>>> Egor Kobylkin
>>>>
>>>> On 09.01.19 21:03, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/01/2019 02.46, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 07.01.19 21:37, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/01/2019 23.12, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good catch! Should we maybe split this into two patches, one for 
>>>>>>>> C and
>>>>>>>> the other for "country" locales? They have different codes and
>>>>>>>> functionality so it looks like it would be easier to keep focus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would probably make sense, the standard C/POSIX locale won't
>>>>>>> support System A so it also narrows down solution alternatives 
>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Country" locales in localedata/locales/ can then have the exact 
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> translit table included or they can have any other flavor - I don't
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> a problem here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, and since those files are not limited to ASCII, perhaps we
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> now reconsider the v9 approach for them, i.e., prefer System A if
>>>>>>> possible, otherwise use System B / ASCII (just need to make sure 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the ASCII fall-back for them will match the built-in C ASCII rule)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy to hear the split seems to be a clear cut one.
>>>>>> How about I rename the "[PATCH v12]...[BZ #2872]" to "[PATCH v1]...
>>>>>> C/POSIX [BZ #2872]" and the "[PATCH v9]" gets its own bug-report
>>>>>> (number) and title for clarity in communication?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure is a new BZ really needed for such an addition, perhaps a
>>>>> NEWS entry might be more appropriate (with the full details 
>>>>> explained in
>>>>> the commit messages of course) but I'll leave this to others to 
>>>>> decide.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This way it would probably be easier to have the decision making 
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> tied up for both patches (separately). We may want to get the v12 
>>>>>> POSIX
>>>>>> out of the door in 2.30 then and can take all the time we need to 
>>>>>> set up
>>>>>> the rules for "Countries" locales as you need them to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps Rafal or Carlos have better suggestions but I would think we
>>>>> could have a patch series where the patch 1/3 adds the C/POSIX locale
>>>>> part (that would be what you posted as v12), then patch 2/3 adds
>>>>> translit_cyrillic (based on your v9 so supports ISO 9.1995 / GOST 7.79
>>>>> System A and GOST 7.79 System B as a fall-back (which would match the
>>>>> C/POSIX rules)), and finally the patch 3/3 updates locales to use
>>>>> translit_cyrillic as appropriate. But as said, Rafal or Carlos may 
>>>>> have
>>>>> alternative suggestions so it might be best to wait for their feedback
>>>>> before doing anything yet (it's unfortunate you've had to do so many
>>>>> iterations around this already but I think we've all learned something
>>>>> during the process and the end result will be more correct than any of
>>>>> the earlier versions).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>
>>>