From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 46dtCln3s2ppFzgAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:59:21 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id F30731E06B; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:59:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (vm01.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:6:3111::32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97BC91E01F for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AA34BB3BEB for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:59:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B6AA34BB3BEB Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B66A74B99F46; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:58:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B66A74B99F46 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org B66A74B99F46 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=45.83.234.184 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1790179125; cv=none; b=t6EzLVoB41LSylvuvFXHWOYSKElGcwLrhEX5Y4jhaguSznvcqFexZfD5NaT2Py9ujrwHpqMTuvO81gIiFtBUxoxHFnbPCd4XJznSVauboOvdTtG/GCIkBFORIm9jI+CM0bsqMqghBc1EwLdU4B9kHBAcleUqlGtb0PfUojJ6w3s= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1790179125; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f7DCJ/Is8G4woFT6bysuX11arP0adrjrX9VM6PRblPU=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:MIME-Version; b=T7H87RFqYw1dvTbQ7NnKgQFODcnJAJrtw6VpCcnSjh7a3jYefEvsBP4yTngHhfS2rcCyCMuWtBCr3G0tF0RbfyucnzOZeJ+tTWsdvAaCA7QCLm/mkE2KmDe9iVf3uuq/HHPTKOkxUr2SgegfYor038zJ7MGsP/i7C8SlsofWqnU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B66A74B99F46 Received: from 9950x.localdomain (82-217-174-174.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [82.217.174.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C787303AA0D; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:58:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: by 9950x.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E9C4AA00C6; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:58:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Meeting Minutes - Office Hours for CTI - 2026-09-18 From: Mark Wielaard To: Andrea Pinski Cc: Carlos O'Donell , gcc developers , glibc developers , gdb developers , binutils developers Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:58:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <0c071aeb-14f4-cd62-8fab-f3eb2659f77b@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-2.fc44) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" Hi Andrea, On Tue, 2026-09-22 at 12:02 -0700, Andrea Pinski via Gdb wrote: > So there was no consensus on the community members except for the ones > who were at the meeting? > Ok. I think that it is wrong to have separate domains. The moving > part is a bad reason for having a seperate domain. If we have a > separate domain the redundant part is just broken and maybe better > names could come up with. >=20 > Also why NOT use a forge for patches instead of pushing for mailing lists= ? > Also why NOT just one email list? Why 6 mailing lists? > What is the need for glibc-stable? > Maybe glibc-testresults should not be a mailing list but rather a > better way of collecting test results and displaying them? I think I understand your point, but I think you are not expressing it very clearly because these questions are phrased rhetorically or sarcastically (at least that is how they read to me). Now people are just answering your questions as if they are part of the disputed proposal. But all of these questions can (and should) be decided separately. glibc is already setup on the forge https://forge.sourceware.org/glibc Currently it is only used as stable mirror. But if someone wants to experiment with merge requests we can install some of the bots/tools gcc has been using. If any list should be closed, archived, renamed/split we can easily do that, no need to move infrastructure. glibc buildbot results are already going into bunsen https://builder.sourceware.org/testruns/ connecting patchwork and buildbot is a work in progress. Cheers, Mark