Re: Kill libc-ports?

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> Do we still need the libc-ports mailing list?  I figured we could all
> just work on libc-alpha.  We're aiming at getting rid of the ports
> directory anyway, and this seems like an easy step.

I believe it is still useful to have a lower-volume list for drawing 
architecture maintainers' attention to cases where a patch has only 
updated some architectures and they need to make corresponding updates to 
their architectures.

Maybe if we move all ports directly into libc (well, remove am33 first, 
given that the person who volunteered to maintain it never posted revised 
patches after 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2012-06/msg00066.html>), leaving the 
ports directory containing only old ChangeLogs, we could then establish a 
policy that routine mechanical changes do update all architectures and 
that most architecture changes do go on libc-alpha, leaving libc-ports as 
just the low-volume list for drawing architecture maintainer attention to 
those changes where all architectures can't be updated so mechanically, 
like the crt*.S changes (or where testing on a range of architectures is 
sought for a patch).  (That would then cover all architectures rather than 
just an arbitrary subset.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com