Kill libc-ports?

[Ryan S. Arnold]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
<siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 September 2013 18:08, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> Certainly when the mechanism was to follow glibc-cvs and reverse-engineer
>> all the commits to work out what needed architecture maintainer action, I
>> know other architecture maintainers found it useful when I identified and
>> described on libc-ports what the changes needed were, and the results of
>> that reverse-engineering.
>
> Again, I would expect arch maintainers to at least keep a passive eye
> on libc-alpha to gauge if there are changes that could be relevant to
> their architecture, so that if someone fails to inform them of the
> change, they could spot it themselves.

For what it's worth my vote is for consolidation to libc-alpha with
encouragement to use [<arch>] subject tags.

I don't think we want to facilitate absentee platform maintainership anyway.

Ryan