Re: Next steps from GTI TAC meeting on 2023-03-08 - Evaluate cost of glibc migration.

On 2023-05-23 15:52, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>>> If you insist, though I still think this is the case of "everyone assumes that
>>> someone else is paying attention to it." I am highly critical of setups that
>>> fire messages into the ether in hopes that someone checks them.
>>
>> People do in practice monitor the commit emails.
> 
> Okay, if you insist -- after all, we do the same thing for all kernel commits.
> I just find it a pretty terrible waste of resources, as I'm pretty sure 99% of
> everyone who subscribes to that list has set things up to go to a folder that
> they never check.
> 

There's probably a viable middle ground here for glibc, where commits 
that don't have an entry in patchwork get sent to the list.  Given the 
current traffic for libc-alpha, it won't add much overhead to libc-alpha 
and also meet auditing requirements.

For the release/* branches, it probably makes more sense to send the 
commits to libc-stable, thus removing the need for developers to send 
[committed X.Y] to the list.  This should then limit the utility of 
glibc-cvs to private branch pushes.  I doubt if anybody cares about 
pushes to private branches, do they?

Thanks,
Sid