Kill libc-ports?

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Ryan S. Arnold wrote:

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

The point is not to facilitate "absentee" maintainership.  It's to 
facilitate maintainership by people with limited time and many other 
responsibilities (which I think is most toolchain developers) by keeping 
to a minimum the effort needed to track relevant changes and discussions.  
I don't think there's a real choice between an architecture maintainer 
just following things relevant to their architecture and one who also 
extensively contributes to the rest of glibc.  It's more likely to be a 
choice between the port that gets maintained in glibc because the workload 
for doing so it kept under control, and one that never gets contributed at 
all or bitrots after being contributed because too much work is involved 
in tracking everything happening in glibc to work out which little bits 
are relevant.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com