binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 484 bytes --]

[resending with fixed To:, sorry]

Hi all,

For a while now, I've been wishing a binutils-cvs (or binutils-commits,
whatever) list existed.

It turns out one did exist [0] but it's had no non-spam messages since
2022-08-15. Was that intentional or did a hook just break at some point
so it stopped getting notifications?

Also, while we're at it, does anyone object to a binutils-bugs list,
like gdb-prs, and gcc-bugs?

[0] https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils-cvs/ [1]

thanks,
sam

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Re: binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Sam,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 08:28:46AM +0000, Sam James via Overseers wrote:
> For a while now, I've been wishing a binutils-cvs (or binutils-commits,
> whatever) list existed.
> 
> It turns out one did exist [0] but it's had no non-spam messages since
> 2022-08-15. Was that intentional or did a hook just break at some point
> so it stopped getting notifications?

The pipermail archive still is getting updates:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils-cvs/

I think the issue is that mail is sent to bfd-cvs@sourceware.org.
That addressis rejected by inbox.sourceware.org (but seems to have a
special exception in mailman). So after the original import no new
messages (except some spam) have been added.

I filed https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31529
We should import the rest and add an alias (and/or change the mail
sending setup).

> Also, while we're at it, does anyone object to a binutils-bugs list,
> like gdb-prs, and gcc-bugs?

binutils uses https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/

> [0] https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils-cvs/ [1]

Re: binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

[Sam James]

Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

> Hi Sam,
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 08:28:46AM +0000, Sam James via Overseers wrote:
>> For a while now, I've been wishing a binutils-cvs (or binutils-commits,
>> whatever) list existed.
>> 
>> It turns out one did exist [0] but it's had no non-spam messages since
>> 2022-08-15. Was that intentional or did a hook just break at some point
>> so it stopped getting notifications?
>
> The pipermail archive still is getting updates:
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils-cvs/
>
> I think the issue is that mail is sent to bfd-cvs@sourceware.org.
> That addressis rejected by inbox.sourceware.org (but seems to have a
> special exception in mailman). So after the original import no new
> messages (except some spam) have been added.
>
> I filed https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31529
> We should import the rest and add an alias (and/or change the mail
> sending setup).

Ah, thanks! That must have been there I'd seen it in the past, but since
moved to public-inbox for all my viewing.

>
>> Also, while we're at it, does anyone object to a binutils-bugs list,
>> like gdb-prs, and gcc-bugs?
>
> binutils uses https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/

Could that possibly be added to inbox.s.o?

>
>> [0] https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils-cvs/ [1]

thanks,
sam

Re: binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

[Sorry for the duplicate, somehow I got the binutils list name wrong.]

On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 11:23 +0100, Nick Clifton via Overseers wrote:
> > It turns out one did exist [0] but it's had no non-spam messages since
> > 2022-08-15. Was that intentional or did a hook just break at some point
> > so it stopped getting notifications?
> 
> I hope that this is something that the overseers can answer.

It is a little mystery why it isn't updating. Being tracked in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31529

> > Also, while we're at it, does anyone object to a binutils-bugs list,
> > like gdb-prs, and gcc-bugs?
> 
> There already is such a list: bug-binutils@gnu.org

Which should be imported into inbox.sourceware.org:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31538

Cheers,

Mark

Re: binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 11:23 +0100, Nick Clifton via Overseers wrote:
> > It turns out one did exist [0] but it's had no non-spam messages since
> > 2022-08-15. Was that intentional or did a hook just break at some point
> > so it stopped getting notifications?
> 
> I hope that this is something that the overseers can answer.

It is a little mystery why it isn't updating. Being tracked in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31529

> > Also, while we're at it, does anyone object to a binutils-bugs list,
> > like gdb-prs, and gcc-bugs?
> 
> There already is such a list: bug-binutils@gnu.org

Which should be imported into inbox.sourceware.org:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31538

Cheers,

Mark

Re: binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Sam,

> It turns out one did exist [0] but it's had no non-spam messages since
> 2022-08-15. Was that intentional or did a hook just break at some point
> so it stopped getting notifications?

I hope that this is something that the overseers can answer.

> Also, while we're at it, does anyone object to a binutils-bugs list,
> like gdb-prs, and gcc-bugs?

There already is such a list: bug-binutils@gnu.org

Cheers
   Nick

binutils-cvs and binutils-bugs lists

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 445 bytes --]

Hi all,

For a while now, I've been wishing a binutils-cvs (or binutils-commits,
whatever) list existed.

It turns out one did exist [0] but it's had no non-spam messages since
2022-08-15. Was that intentional or did a hook just break at some point
so it stopped getting notifications?

Also, while we're at it, does anyone object to a binutils-bugs list,
like gdb-prs, and gcc-bugs?

[0] https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils-cvs/

thanks,
sam

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]