From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5694 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2004 22:12:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5676 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2004 22:12:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Jun 2004 22:12:25 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5LMCPe1021939 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:12:25 -0400 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5LMCN030772; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:12:24 -0400 To: gdb-discuss@gnu.org CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Should we close down gdb-discuss@gnu.org? From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 I've noticed that, since the conversation from January has died down, gdb-discuss has most often been used accidentally by newcomers to GDB, when gdb@ or gdb-patches@ would be more appropriate. (I'd like to look at the archives to verify that this is the case, but it looks like the archiving stopped working at the end of March. I've asked the GNU postmaster about this.) gdb-discuss was originally the GDB Steering Committee's list, but then it was decided that the committee should generally hold its discussions in private, a private list was created, and this list was renamed from gdbheads to gdb-discuss. I can understand the advantage of having a list other than gdb@ to carry non-technical discussions. But I'm not sure that outweighs the disadvantage of being confusing to newcomers to GDB. What do people think?