On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 05:13:41PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw via Sourceware Forge wrote:
> > Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha) <[email protected]> approved the changes:
> > This seems reasonable to me - it's simply reformatting information already
> > stored in the GCC repository.
> > OK, but please give it until Tuesday in case there are any last minute
> > objections.
>
> I think it is by itself a good idea – but I am not sure "inactive_email" is
> the right word. There is:
>
> * Non-primary email addresses - like in my case, my private email.
> Still valid and with FSF assignment, but my work email is my
> primary one.
> * Old email addresses due to company-name changes - still valid but
> not used for new new emails. (I have one of those too.)
> * Old email addresses - not valid any more, usually because of
> changing companies.
>
> I think inactive is fine for all of those, but we could also have
> a non_primary one - esp. for some things, I might still use my
> private email – which is would be more a non_primary_email than
> inactive_email.
I thought the first email in email: is the primary one, the others
in that array are non-primary but ones that are still supposed to work.
inactive_emails: are those that don't work anymore, from past companies
without forward mechanism, mail server which doesn't exist anymore,
email account removed, etc., i.e. something where you can't be reached
at, but still some commits in the repo are using that email.
Jakub
