From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: remove patchworks. Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:27:29 +0200 Message-ID: <878tud7cjy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wpi0s4vn.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37642) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1borU3-0007WG-E7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:27:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1borTx-000215-Ag for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:27:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wpi0s4vn.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> (ng0's message of "Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:30:52 +0000") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: ng0 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org ng0 skribis: > We have 22 pages of "open" patches. But they are not really open. I > believe almost no one uses patchworks. I did for some time, and so did > Ludovic and probably 3 more people but that's it. Yeah, I agree, this was experimental, and the experiment wasn=E2=80=99t qui= te successful. We don=E2=80=99t need to formally =E2=80=9Cremove=E2=80=9D the= instance though; we can eventually email the Sourceware folks asking them to do so, but no rush IMO. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.