This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Kill libc-ports?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:56:01 -0400
- 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>
On 09/06/2013 08:38 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> My suggestion is that libc-ports would be for all architectures (where
> architecture maintainer action is needed) rather than just for some
> subset.
I like this idea.
I suggest:
* Leave libc-alpha as the main high-volume development list.
- Discuss all development on this list for all machines.
- Thomas reminded me of all the reasons why we shouldn't just
arbitrarily change mailing list names.
- You can still tag your emails if you want with [all-arch]
or [s390][ppc], but subscribing to another mailing list is
just easier for filtering.
* Use libc-ports as the low-volume cross-all-ports change notification list.
- Joseph makes a good point about high-volume on libc-alpha and a need
for a developer notification list.
Comments?
Cheers,
Carlos.