Re: Kill libc-ports?

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

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.