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 |