Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 11:01:34AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >On 10/23/22 10:07, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >>>If you're trying to suggest that overseers, contrary to our repeated >>>public statements, wish to block all migration, that is untrue and you >>>will need to retract this. >> >>Here's a more

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

vv On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 06:19:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >It doesn't smell good, however, that Sourceware has been prevented from >presenting its own >expansion plans and proposals at the

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html > >On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the >>services for the G

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:17:15AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >That is not true, Mark. Your objections and questions have been answered at >every stage, privately as well as publicly. Actually, going back through this thread, I see outstanding questions/issues raised by Mark, Frank, Alexand

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the >services for the GNU Toolchain to the Linux Foundation IT under the auspices of >the Toolch

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:02:19PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: >...But it would be really nice to hear directly from the Linux >Foundation and the OpenSSF about what exactly they are proposing, which >parts of the proposal are mandatory, which can be mixed and matched, >and how they see this workin

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:17:14PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> > I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of >> > scope creep of the GTI proposal

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of >scope creep of the GTI proposal. Who is doing the false speculation? Do you have a mailing list link? It would be interesting to know who's got it wrong.

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:48:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >>By the way, the public-inbox software >>(), as recently mentioned in a >>different thread discussing deficiencies of Mailman'

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:14:55AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >>Such a service is not currently available on sourceware, but it'd be >>possible to implement: as messages come in, you'd build a database >>mapping from the Message-ID header to "current Mailman's Pipermail >>URL". > >I was thinkin

Re: blacklisted after announce on GNU cauldron ?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 18:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 16:46, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>All of the above is handled by whomever is responsible for the gcc web >>>pages. It would be nice if someone fixed th

Re: blacklisted after announce on GNU cauldron ?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 05:13:13PM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote: >Hi Frank, > >> On 23 Apr 2020, at 16:34, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> >> Hi - >> A re-subscription attempt to the gcc mailing list just failed, expectedly I guess. >> >> I see no sign in the logs of Olivier being banned i

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:56:09PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >In a way that's amusing and just reinforces my p.o.v. that DMARC is >bollocks. Not that it means anything but I agree 100%. It's like whoever made the "standard" just said "to hell with mailing lists".

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:13:53PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >Can we please switch it off? It's not like we really had a problem before >the switch to mailman. You can't really make statements like this which imply that you are aware of "problems" on sourceware when you're not a sourceware admi