This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Monday 23 September 2013 18:41:20 Roland McGrath wrote: > I don't think having two mailing lists is useful. It just complicates > life. > > My preference (as I've said in the past) would be that libc-alpha be > renamed to something less random, such as libc-devel. But I can't argue > with the concerns about gratuitous legwork on sourceware, bifurcating the > list archives, etc. So let's worry about possible renaming separately and > later, not now. > > libc-ports per se is no longer useful and should go away. > > I sympathize with the need of machine maintainers to have an easier way > than filtering libc-alpha to keep track of their pending work. Repurposing > the historical libc-ports list is not the way to do that. Possibly a new > mailing list could make sense, but I doubt it. My suggestion is a new > protocol using a wiki page that machine maintainers are expected to put a > wiki watch on. That would also be the way to keep track of the doneness > state of a given issue for each machine. People who are quite active doing > something to keep track of machine maintainers' timeliness in updating that > wiki page could be a good way to assess the ongoing level of responsiveness > of each machine maintainer. maybe i'm unusual, but i've always had libc-ports and libc-alpha delivered to the same box, and tracking threads has been fine -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |