This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Moving the libstdc++ lists
- To: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at (Gerald Pfeifer)
- Subject: Re: Moving the libstdc++ lists
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: libstdc++ at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> Okay, now that Phil and I approach the finishing line concerning the
> web pages, we should also consider moving the libstdc++ lists.
> How do we want to do that? Move all three lists mentioned in
> from firstname.lastname@example.org to email@example.com?
I think that any libstdc++ lists that are kept should move to @gcc.gnu.org
> Are -cvs and -prs still needed?
For libstdc++-prs, one difficulty is that we are likely to get C++ problem
results where it is initially not clear if the bug is in the compiler or
the library. It might be cleaner just to have one combined set of prs.
For cvs, having a separate list to track checkins might make it easier
for developers who only care about libstdc++ to spare themselves unwanted
That suggests keeping libstdc++ and libstdc++-cvs, but combining the
others (except maybe patches?).
> And if we keep all three lists, we should probably also should think (and
> document) the roles of the various lists: Where should bootstrap failures
> related to libstdc++ go? gcc-bugs? And shouldn't all patches also be sent
> to gcc-patches? ...
I think that we should treat bugs as one lump. We can use GNATS categories
to separate things out. As for patches, whatever is most convenient to
the main developers.