Kill libc-ports?

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 29-09-2013 00:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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
I also prefer one mailist and I also like the idea of the wiki to keep track with
machine status. I also this is usefull to add header decorations on arch-related
patches/topics.