| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to prepare |
| 4 |
>> the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free to reply |
| 5 |
>> to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting reminder |
| 6 |
>> approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be sending a |
| 7 |
>> message about the two topics which did not make it last time and |
| 8 |
>> explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but well... you |
| 9 |
>> know... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of |
| 12 |
> -dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the following |
| 13 |
> behaviour such that I: |
| 14 |
> - don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times |
| 15 |
> - don't get lost where the mail is/was |
| 16 |
> - get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another |
| 17 |
> list |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Proposed behaviour: |
| 20 |
> Aautomatically send all mail sent to -dev-announce to -dev. |
| 21 |
> Benefits: |
| 22 |
> - any reply-to hackery for -dev-announce to -dev unnecessary |
| 23 |
> - being subscrived to -dev alone is enough (alternatively -dev-announce |
| 24 |
> can be /dev/null-ed) |
| 25 |
> - threads are complete, instead of scattered over some lists |
| 26 |
> - multiple copies can be avoided |
| 27 |
> - cross-list posting can be reduced to a minimum |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
In general there are too many mail lists to even care about the |
| 32 |
semantics of -dev-announce. Even this thread is being carried out on |
| 33 |
-dev and -council. Well, that was the attempt, but no one that has |
| 34 |
replied so far is on the -council list so the attempted thread on that |
| 35 |
list is dead too. |
| 36 |
-Jeremy |
Archives