Hi, On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 09:55:47AM -0700, Andrea Pinski via Gdb wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 9:34 AM Carlos O'Donell via Gcc <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Posting across the project mailing lists since some developers had > > questions and are only subscribed on some lists. > > This assumes that there is consensus on moving forward with any > proposal. And second, there is not enough information in these > meeting notes. > [...] > > * Discuss on libc-alpha finalizing git URLs > > * git.glibc.coretoolchain.dev/glibc (RO mirror) > > * gitolite.glibc.coretoolchain.dev/glibc (RW for developers) > > * gitolite.glibc.coretoolchain.dev/glibc-keyring (RW for admins) > > What is the rationale for having 3 different URLs? What is the > rationale for using `coretoolchain.dev` rather than something more > specific named with gnu? > Why have a glibc subdomain? Etc.
If you want and have a good rational then Sourceware could of course provide (sub)domains like glibc.sourceware.org or gnu.toolchain.dev/glibc or (in cooperation with the fsf-tech team) glibc.gnu.org, etc. backed by different VMs or services. > [...] > There is no rationale there at all; even the previous meetings notes > don't mention why. Rather just the final choices. > > This is a communication failure and a trust issue here. > > > * ACTION: Carlos to email the mailing list with proposals for discussion. Best action item would be to first seek concensus on moving forward with any of these proposals. Otherwise you risk spending time on things nobody will use or worse create a fork and split the community: https://inbox.sourceware.org/[email protected] Like Zoë said we could achieve much more by working together: https://inbox.sourceware.org/[email protected] And there have been many constructive suggestions how we could do that. Cheers, Mark
