From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16766 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2007 21:05:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 16523 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2007 21:05:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (HELO nz-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.162.225) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:05:53 +0000 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s1so597313nze for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.134.1 with SMTP id h1mr2237271wad.1185483950742; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.235.6 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:05:00 -0000 From: "Andrew Pinski" To: "Diego Novillo" Subject: Re: Creating gcc-newbies mailing list Cc: overseers@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <46A9099D.6020709@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <46A9099D.6020709@google.com> 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On 7/26/07, Diego Novillo wrote: > > I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list: > gcc-newbies@gcc.gnu.org. > > The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers who > might feel lost and intimidated by the more arcane traffic at gcc and > gcc-patches. In this list, no question regarding GCC development should > be considered offtopic nor treated with "RTFM" responses. I think this is the wrong aproach. I have not seen any "RTFM" response for questions of developing of GCC on the gcc@ list. I think it is wrong to seerate newbies questions from normal development questions because some of other developers might not want to join that list just to answer questions and then learn that a question was being discussed on that list already. Also I think it was wrong to ask first on the overseers mailing list to create this list before discussing the pros/cons about the list. > Or maybe this is not a good idea, but I have certainly seen some folks > that complain about our less than friendly practices. Most of those are due to offtopic questions in the first place. If you look at the recent thread about libelf, well that was offtopic but it became unfriendly really after a person continued the thread after being asked once nicely to take the thread to the libelf mailing lists. Thanks, Andrew Pinski