From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11856 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2014 00:12:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 11822 invoked by uid 89); 2 Aug 2014 00:12:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 02 Aug 2014 00:12:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s720ClsP022206 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 20:12:47 -0400 Received: from [10.10.116.32] ([10.10.116.32]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s720CiCf029577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 20:12:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1406938368.3620.53.camel@YAAKOV04> Subject: Re: sourceware and git From: Yaakov Selkowitz To: overseers@sourceware.org Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 00:12:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20140801225453.GC13858@redhat.com> References: <1942527352.18336706.1406653023761.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20140730011311.GB4665@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20140730184538.GA1043@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20140730213320.GA4760@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <1406763685.8964.38.camel@YAAKOV04> <20140731022208.GB4760@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20140801110518.GA26773@calimero.vinschen.de> <20140801225453.GC13858@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-q3/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 18:54 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Rather than focus on the building dependency aspects though, consider > focusing on actual project operation / community. Are newlib/libgloss > is maintained/released by a different group of people on a different > schedule than cygwin? There is some overlap (namely Corinna), but mostly we are separate groups and the release schedule is definitely separate. But that too we have in common with binutils-gdb communities, yet the technical aspects obviously brought them to decide upon a single joint repository. I guess the question now is, are there any objections from the newlib/libgloss folks in doing the same? Yaakov