From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25579 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2003 23:38:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24883 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2003 23:38:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO piper.synopsys.com) (204.176.21.196) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2003 23:38:44 -0000 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59Ncar20401; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:38:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:38:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Christopher Faylor , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x Message-ID: <20030609163836.A20345@synopsys.com> References: <87of17t2j4.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3EE4F6AD.7060300@redhat.com> <20030609210940.GA15597@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from aoliva@redhat.com on Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:58:30PM -0300 X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 On Jun 9, 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I agree. It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this talked > > about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain. On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:58:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I've always wanted us to have toplevel@ or > configure@sources.redhat.com, for all projects hosted in s.r.c., and > GCC too, just because GCC shares most of the top-level files with > that. Can't we go ahead and create one of these lists, in which we'll > discuss not only this transition, but also any patches that affect the > top level alone? So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at the end, and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end? Thanks to both companies for giving us so much free software work, but let's avoid any company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's domain as much as we can, OK? To do otherwise will just confuse people into thinking that something is a single-company effort, when it is not.