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

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>]

On 5/24/23 14:44, Joseph Myers wrote:
> 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.
 
And in fact this is how I track Google's public work on the GRTE glibc branches.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.