This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Kill libc-ports?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Ryan S. Arnold" <ryan dot arnold at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 19:37:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: Kill libc-ports?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130905121121 dot GN4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309051534260 dot 28271 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130906052150 dot GS4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309061227310 dot 3054 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAAHN_R0uRerwkXEay9Ogr_J+xOeV+cOxrjyeCfjGM24uJP34eg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAKybw9PEo284rgfyduTsZbg3dowCzYU9dqQ8S=1wo5v3pzceQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Ryan S. Arnold wrote:
> I don't think we want to facilitate absentee platform maintainership anyway.
The point is not to facilitate "absentee" maintainership. It's to
facilitate maintainership by people with limited time and many other
responsibilities (which I think is most toolchain developers) by keeping
to a minimum the effort needed to track relevant changes and discussions.
I don't think there's a real choice between an architecture maintainer
just following things relevant to their architecture and one who also
extensively contributes to the rest of glibc. It's more likely to be a
choice between the port that gets maintained in glibc because the workload
for doing so it kept under control, and one that never gets contributed at
all or bitrots after being contributed because too much work is involved
in tracking everything happening in glibc to work out which little bits
are relevant.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com