| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 17:36 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Agree, but with the caveat that devs must still be at least subscribed |
| 5 |
> > to -core even if they choose not to read it. This way, you could have a |
| 6 |
> > -dev-announce that also refers to something private on -core if need be. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Now, do we really need it to be -core-announce? Not really. In fact, |
| 9 |
> >> at one point we'd come up with both a -core-announce and a |
| 10 |
> >> -dev-announce, with -core-announce being for more sensitive information. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I'm having a tough time thinking of sensitive information that all devs |
| 13 |
> > must know about (i.e., that would qualify for -core-announce). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I'd rather not create a -core-announce. The amount of times those types |
| 18 |
> of things come up on the list are rare. It would be easier to have an |
| 19 |
> standard subject heading (maybe ANNOUNCEMENT:) that people can use in |
| 20 |
> their filters. If devs start abusing it, then we'll vote them off the |
| 21 |
> island :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Simple, Effective.. I like it.. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives