This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Kill libc-ports?
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:51:50 +0530
- 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>
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:40:03PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> 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.
Couldn't we just do this with tags in the email subject:
[all-arch]
[s390][ppc]
The ports distinction is artificial, in that the 'primary'
architectures are still discussed on the main list.
> 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
I don't see why the mailing list policy has to depend on this. I
agree that we need to get rid of the ports directory, but that could
be a separate change.
Siddhesh