RE: what mailing list to follow (for gcc-gfortran ?)

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, S. Bosscher wrote:

> Until we've figured out if/when we can get our own @gcc mailing list, I'd
> very much prefer that _everything_ related only to gfortran just stays on
> the gcc-g95 list.  Including patches.

You need to make several choices about what lists are wanted, following
which features of those presently used for subprojects.

Do you want a gfortran-cvs mailing list, to receive that subset of gcc-cvs 
messages, in addition to them going to gcc-cvs?  If so, web archived (as 
with libstdc++-cvs) or not (as with java-cvs)?

Do you want separate discussion and patches lists (as with Java) or just
one list for both (as with libstdc++)?

Should patches to the runtime library (and discussion thereof) go to
gcc-patches as well as gfortran/gfortran-patches?  For libstdc++ they go
to both.  For Java, front end patches go to both (and I think this at
least should be kept for gfortran) while libgcj patches go only to
java-patches.

[Note that these patch policies are documented in both lists.html and
contribute.html.  We might want to do something about this duplication.]

Do you want a list to receive gfortran bug reports and discussion thereof
(which of course would also go to gcc-bugs)?  The Java maintainers have
recently requested the return of the list they had for this purpose
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-08/msg00008.html>.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk