This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Kill libc-ports?
- From: "Ryan S. Arnold" <ryan dot arnold at gmail dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:41:35 -0500
- 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>
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
<siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 September 2013 18:08, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> Certainly when the mechanism was to follow glibc-cvs and reverse-engineer
>> all the commits to work out what needed architecture maintainer action, I
>> know other architecture maintainers found it useful when I identified and
>> described on libc-ports what the changes needed were, and the results of
>> that reverse-engineering.
>
> Again, I would expect arch maintainers to at least keep a passive eye
> on libc-alpha to gauge if there are changes that could be relevant to
> their architecture, so that if someone fails to inform them of the
> change, they could spot it themselves.
For what it's worth my vote is for consolidation to libc-alpha with
encouragement to use [<arch>] subject tags.
I don't think we want to facilitate absentee platform maintainership anyway.
Ryan