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

On Wed, 24 May 2023, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> 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.

I think this is overly complicating things.  (Though it would be good for 
glibc to have the check done for GCC that once a commit is in the 
repository, emails aren't sent out again for a merge of that commit into a 
user / vendor / development branch.)

> 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?

I think commits to user / vendor branches can be of interest.  They may 
suggest things that would be worth adding to master (even if the original 
author didn't think of them as appropriate for master, or loses interest 
in them), for example.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
[email protected]