On 2022-10-23 13:09, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
[...] To be specific, gcc steering committee and glibc FSF stewards
have announced the decision for their projects [...]
I may be missing something. All I've seen so far were some of the
leaders of some of the projects being joint signatories to a
On 2022-10-23 17:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.htm
Snapshot gcc-13-20221023 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20221023/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 11:01:34AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 10/23/22 10:07, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>>>If you're trying to suggest that overseers, contrary to our repeated
>>>public statements, wish to block all migration, that is untrue and you
>>>will need to retract this.
>>
>>Here's a more
vv
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 06:19:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>It doesn't smell good, however, that Sourceware has been prevented from
>presenting its own
>expansion plans and proposals at the
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:
On Oct 12, 2022, "Carlos O'Donell via Overseers"
wrote:
> The GNU Toolchain project leadership
Is GNU Toolchain the name of a project? This term has usually meant a
set of packages that are part of the GNU Project. Each package has its
own set of maintainers appointed by GNU leadership, each
On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports th
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html
>
>On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the
>>services for the G
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 12:17:36PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > Let's consider some "established security and administration practices"
> >
> > curl -v http://vger.kernel.org | head
These are all very fair observations, with one important caveat --
vger.kernel.org is the last remaining pi
On 10/23/22 11:09, Frank Ch. Eigler via Libc-alpha wrote:
Hi -
[...] To be specific, gcc steering committee and glibc FSF stewards
have announced the decision for their projects [...]
I may be missing something. All I've seen so far were some of the
leaders of some of the projects being jo
Hi -
> [...] To be specific, gcc steering committee and glibc FSF stewards
> have announced the decision for their projects [...]
I may be missing something. All I've seen so far were some of the
leaders of some of the projects being joint signatories to a letter on
overseers@. As far as I'm a
On 10/23/22 10:07, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
If you're trying to suggest that overseers, contrary to our repeated
public statements, wish to block all migration, that is untrue and you
will need to retract this.
Here's a more precise statement: Two of the overseers are leaders of
projects h
On 10/23/22 09:16, Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc wrote:
Hi -
[...] Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to
block migration of all sourceware assets to the LF IT [...]
If you're trying to say that projects have not unanimously shown
interest in moving infrastructure to LF IT, jus
On 2022-10-23 12:07, Siddhesh Poyarekar via Overseers wrote:
sourceware, I assume that means he'd like to use sourceware as a mirror
or something similar) but gdb folks have been silent so far. Given how
gdb and binutils are coupled, the gdb conversation really needs to
happen at some point.
On 2022-10-23 07:33, Ian Kelling wrote:
Siddhesh Poyarekar via Overseers writes:
I personally do not think the current sourceware infrastructure, even
with the roadmap it promises is a viable alternative to what LF IT can
provide. There is a significant resource gap (e.g.
established s
On 2022-10-23 11:16, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
[...] Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to
block migration of all sourceware assets to the LF IT [...]
If you're trying to say that projects have not unanimously shown
interest in moving infrastructure to LF IT, just say t
Siddhesh Poyarekar via Overseers writes:
> I personally do not think the current sourceware infrastructure, even
> with the roadmap it promises is a viable alternative to what LF IT can
> provide. There is a significant resource gap (e.g.
> established security and administration practices,
Hi -
> [...] Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to
> block migration of all sourceware assets to the LF IT [...]
If you're trying to say that projects have not unanimously shown
interest in moving infrastructure to LF IT, just say that. Don't
blame overseers.
If you're tryin
> On Oct 22, 2022, at 2:38 PM, Marc Glisse via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2022, Péntek Imre via Gcc wrote:
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
>>
>> by "Architecture does not have a single condition code register" do you mean
>> it has none or do you mean it has multiple?
>
> Either.
On 2022-10-23 04:59, Ian Kelling wrote:
No, I don't think that was ever clear. I've just read this message, but
I've been keeping up with everything public since Cauldron. All your
options assume that any specific service is 100% managed by LF IT, or
100% managed by sourceware. That is a bad ass
On Friday, 21 October 2022 23:02:02 CEST Joseph Myers wrote:
> I have no objections to the C changes.
Great! Thanks for the review. I don't have push rights currently, so I
must ask that someone else pushes this patch for me.
Have a great day!
--
Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: T
Siddhesh Poyarekar via Overseers writes:
>> what
>> alternatives we have, etc.
> For projects the alternatives they have are:
>
> 1. Migrate to LF IT infrastructure
> 2. Have a presence on sourceware as well as LF IT, contingent to Red
> Hat's decision on the hardware infrastructure
> 3. Stay f
23 matches
Mail list logo
