From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id IIhUIXpK7mNijDUAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:23:38 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 863E31E222; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:23:38 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=rC6/yWPx; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB391E110 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:23:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCF8385AC39 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:23:37 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8FCF8385AC39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1676561017; bh=7jRoSYLZlUseQC0sh4Ne+QMIpkeavcAdmteyG8FyUzY=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=rC6/yWPxdrMt47HAhpLa2pItSy0KrurtsWsMgPd1Nk6FTMvrH3WUeKbUgOzBzVja2 AVL1/H2bZwqmWMUGVJ7X8OwFMOYFqdhELsWVh324WC2Xcjg3VuPCKMb1MR5qeNr8SC XraamuBEAwkV7dIgnP2pbaLkjkcPq8GZOWQqk6Hg= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20993858D33 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:23:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org E20993858D33 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pSg6H-0003ys-Hb; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:23:09 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pSg6H-0004iK-17; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:23:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:23:05 +0200 Message-Id: <83sff53a92.fsf@gnu.org> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: mark@klomp.org, aburgess@redhat.com, luis.machado@arm.com, simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Joel Brobecker on Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:31:33 +0400) Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF? References: <20230212124345.GH2430@gnu.wildebeest.org> <87r0utu6ew.fsf@redhat.com> <65409b73-fc6d-9a89-3541-31eb1a0b0791@arm.com> <87bklxtx7r.fsf@redhat.com> <7112932f-4260-2f33-e619-c7130e0abb20@arm.com> <87zg9fkmt4.fsf@redhat.com> <20230216095159.GD6028@gnu.wildebeest.org> <83zg9d7rfl.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:31:33 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Joel Brobecker , mark@klomp.org, > aburgess@redhat.com, luis.machado@arm.com, simark@simark.ca, > gdb@sourceware.org > > > So if good support for email is not a requirement, we need to consider > > the consequences of basically abandoning email entirely. > > FTAOD, I am not saying that we must abandon email. I didn't say you did. > I understand what everyone is saying, and I understand the benefits > of email. But aren't we allowing our own experience to unfairly bias > the list of requirements? I just mentioned the result of switching to the web interface. I didn't say we shouldn't switch, and it is not my place to make the decision anyway. I just provided a data point that those who do decide should consider. Whether it shifts the balance in one or the other direction is a separate discussion. > Rather than say "email is nice because it provides those nice > properties" therefore "let's keep emails", I think we should say > "let's investigate any solution that preserve the nice properties", > including those that don't do via email. Otherwise, you're putting > the cart before the horses. Sure, I'm not against that method.