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: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:26:51 -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> <CAAHN_R0uRerwkXEay9Ogr_J+xOeV+cOxrjyeCfjGM24uJP34eg at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309061919120 dot 11925 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130910121107 dot GF4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On 09/10/2013 08:11 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> The real bottleneck for casual contributors is arcane ChangeLog
> nonsense and FSF copyright assignment, one of which is slightly
> useful. I still don't see how putting architecture maintainers in a
> silo makes it easier for them to make prompt architecture updates
> where required.
The important issue is that some maintainers are expressing a desire
to have a simple channel for communicating machine-wide changes
that require maintainer response. It is my opinion that this is
orthogonal to this entire discussion, but is being co-opted since
libc-ports could serve this purpose.
I see the following requirements surfacing:
(a) A need a place to discuss day-to-day development.
(b) Some maintainers have requested that machine-wide changes
be broadcast in a special way that reaches them and so that
they can respond quickly.
This appears to map nicely to:
(1) libc-alpha
(2) libc-ports
It is my opinion that rationale about list volume are not
relevant to this discussion. As the glibc community we should
listen to our maintainer requests and attempt to build a
community that meets their needs and workflows.
What do we gain from merging libc-ports that we loose by
making Joseph or Chris need to filter through more email?
I argue that the prime directive is violated. Chris and
Joseph as core maintainers have expressed a desire to
simplify the workflow and reduce their wasted time. I
can't disagree with them. I would also like such a list
for hppa work :-)
Cheers,
Carlos.