| 1 |
On Sunday 20 December 2009 15:04:12 Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 20-12-2009 15:01:30 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 20 December 2009 09:49:09 Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to |
| 6 |
> > > > prepare the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free |
| 7 |
> > > > to reply to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting |
| 8 |
> > > > reminder approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be |
| 9 |
> > > > sending a message about the two topics which did not make it last |
| 10 |
> > > > time and explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but |
| 11 |
> > > > well... you know... |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of |
| 14 |
> > > -dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the |
| 15 |
> > > following behaviour such that I: |
| 16 |
> > > - don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times |
| 17 |
> > > - don't get lost where the mail is/was |
| 18 |
> > > - get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another |
| 19 |
> > > list |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > get a sane mail client that automatically handles messages with duplicate |
| 22 |
> > ids and references. cant say ive ever noticed a problem with kmail. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> and gmane or even archives.g.o? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
gmane is f-ed up already irregardless of what we do. it eats cross-posted e- |
| 27 |
mails for breakfast and doesnt tell anyone. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
as for archives.g.o, file a bug if it isnt handling threading within a list |
| 30 |
properly. i dont really see how your proposal here would break archives.g.o |
| 31 |
anyways. someone sends an e-mail to both dev and dev-announce, it has the |
| 32 |
same id. people respond and they all go to dev. either way, archives.g.o |
| 33 |
should be seeing a sane thread on dev. |
| 34 |
-mike |
Archives