Kill libc-ports?

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> On 09/06/2013 08:38 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > My suggestion is that libc-ports would be for all architectures (where 
> > architecture maintainer action is needed) rather than just for some 
> > subset.
> 
> I like this idea.
> 
> I suggest:
> 
> * Leave libc-alpha as the main high-volume development list.
>   - Discuss all development on this list for all machines.
>   - Thomas reminded me of all the reasons why we shouldn't just
>     arbitrarily change mailing list names.
>   - You can still tag your emails if you want with [all-arch]
>     or [s390][ppc], but subscribing to another mailing list is
>     just easier for filtering.
> 
> * Use libc-ports as the low-volume cross-all-ports change notification list.
>   - Joseph makes a good point about high-volume on libc-alpha and a need
>     for a developer notification list.
> 
> Comments?

In this model, one should add:

- If you have a patch for one specific architecture you want the 
architecture maintainer to review, send it to libc-alpha and CC the 
maintainer (so libc-ports stays low-volume and is specifically for 
all-architecture or many-architecture notifications, where people trying 
to produce a CC list of maintainers covering all architectures usually get 
it wrong and miss some out).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com