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]

Re: Kill libc-ports?


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]