Mailing List Archive

Petteri Räty wrote:
> I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
> list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the creation of the
> -project mailing (the thread itself is a prime example on why we need
> -project in the first place) so how about we just get that mailing list
> going right no and let the rest of it fall into place later. My guess is
> that if we would have had -project for ages, the need for moderating
> -dev would have never come about. I bet there are devs who have talked
> about creating this kind of a list months, even years ago. This time
> it's not about show me the code but show me the mailing list!

I'm not sure on the history of a non-technical ML itself, but I cooked up the
idea of gentoo-politics originally, thinking the similarly-themed debian ML was
debian-politics. After a debian developer pointed out that it was actually A)
debian-project, and B) He intentionally stays off that list (obviously for good
reason), I figured the name and non-requirement for developers was most
appropriate for our needs as well.

Hence, Bug #181368 was born.

And apparently, so was "ML Changes". Guess the doctor neglected to mention that
I was having twins, and that one of them was gonna grow up to be overweight and
ugly, yet incredibly hot.

Healthcare really has gone down the drain here in the UDG, hasn't it? (United
Developers of Gentoo). Anyone care to recruit Moore as a developer?

Anyone???



--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
> list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the creation of the
> -project mailing (the thread itself is a prime example on why we need
> -project in the first place) so how about we just get that mailing list
> going right no and let the rest of it fall into place later. My guess is
> that if we would have had -project for ages, the need for moderating
> -dev would have never come about. I bet there are devs who have talked
> about creating this kind of a list months, even years ago. This time
> it's not about show me the code but show me the mailing list!

Speaking strictly in an infra role here, and not a council role at all.

If there is no opposition (because I suspect I might have missed it in
the length of the previous thread) to the _creation_ of -project by Jul
18th 00h00 UTC, I'll create it.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
> list

(just to avoid misunderstandings, we're not only talking about
creating -project, but also the stuff that people with non @gentoo.org
address get moderated on -dev as discussed in the last 100 mails or
so, right?)

I've pretty much kept my opinion out of it because even if the council
screws up, it's up to the council to decide things.
Since no opposition suddenly became the basis to pull it through:

I find the idea terrible.

cheers,
Wernfried

--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

Wernfried Haas kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
>> list
>
> (just to avoid misunderstandings, we're not only talking about
> creating -project, but also the stuff that people with non @gentoo.org
> address get moderated on -dev as discussed in the last 100 mails or
> so, right?)

No, just the mailing list. Dunno but I tried to make that clear in my mail.

Regards,
Petteri

On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 09:49:32AM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R?ty wrote:
> > I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
> > list
> (just to avoid misunderstandings, we're not only talking about
> creating -project, but also the stuff that people with non @gentoo.org
> address get moderated on -dev as discussed in the last 100 mails or
> so, right?)
betelgeuse was talking only about the creation of -project. None of the
other stuff.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:54:35AM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> No, just the mailing list. Dunno but I tried to make that clear in my mail.

Oops, sorry. No opposition to _that_. ;-)

cheers,
Wernfried

--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:04:55 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project
> mailing list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the
> creation of the -project mailing (the thread itself is a prime
> example on why we need -project in the first place) so how about we
> just get that mailing list going right no and let the rest of it fall
> into place later.

How about defining the purpose of all these list with which we'll
soon end up before going ahead and requesting changes?

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> How about defining the purpose of all these list with which we'll
> soon end up before going ahead and requesting changes?

-dev is just for technical development.
-project is for non technical development of Gentoo.

What is technical development? Well, if your email doesn't have any code
or questions about code then it probably doesn't belong on -dev is is
more suited to another list.

If you feel the urge to email about other things then submit more list
ideas.

Thanks

Roy

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> How about defining the purpose of all these list with which we'll
>> soon end up before going ahead and requesting changes?
>
> -dev is just for technical development.
> -project is for non technical development of Gentoo.
>
> What is technical development? Well, if your email doesn't have any code
> or questions about code then it probably doesn't belong on -dev is is
> more suited to another list.
>
> If you feel the urge to email about other things then submit more list
> ideas.
>
So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the
-project list?

Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the
middle?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:13 +0100, George Prowse wrote:
> So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the
> -project list?

Or on say gentoo-announce, but yes.

> Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the
> middle?

That's an announcement, so I would say it shouldn't be there.

The idea is that -dev is just about development. Having more specific
mailing lists should stop people treating -dev like their personal soap
box which seems to be the big issue atm.

Thanks

Roy

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

George Prowse wrote:
>
> So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the
> -project list?

My thinking, I think they would fit better over there, since it is somewhat
non-technical. However, machine-generated notices of dev arrival or dev
departure could be directed to other lists. There's been talk of a
-dev-announce list as well; perhaps such automated messages of dev changes could
be sent there in a fashion (either individually as one joins or one leaves, or
in a weekly digest form summarizing the changes).


> Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the
> middle?

I think package additions/removals should stay there, since they are development
related, such as the removal due to bitrot or an unfixiable security flaw, etc.
Such messages might also be candidates for the above mentioned -dev-announce
ML as well.



--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:13 +0100, George Prowse wrote:
>> So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the
>> -project list?
>
> Or on say gentoo-announce, but yes.
>
>> Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the
>> middle?
>
> That's an announcement, so I would say it shouldn't be there.
>
> The idea is that -dev is just about development. Having more specific
> mailing lists should stop people treating -dev like their personal soap
> box which seems to be the big issue atm.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roy
>

Yeah, let's use -announce for more things besides GLSA.

Regards,

--

Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org"
Gentoo Linux

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Kumba wrote:
> George Prowse wrote:
>> So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the
>> -project list?
>
> My thinking, I think they would fit better over there, since it is somewhat
> non-technical. However, machine-generated notices of dev arrival or dev
> departure could be directed to other lists. There's been talk of a
> -dev-announce list as well; perhaps such automated messages of dev changes could
> be sent there in a fashion (either individually as one joins or one leaves, or
> in a weekly digest form summarizing the changes).

Seems to me that new dev announcements should be on [perhaps the
announcement variant] of -dev, since they are related to the development
team. It'd be nice to hear those announcements on the list devs are
required to subscribe to, so all devs hear about new arrivals. As an
IMHO, -dev (or variants) should be for topics of importance to
*developers & development* (but not attacks/flame wars, politics, etc.,
obviously), and not strictly limited to *technical/coding* issues, which
seems a bit narrow.

>> Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the
>> middle?
>
> I think package additions/removals should stay there, since they are development
> related, such as the removal due to bitrot or an unfixiable security flaw, etc.
> Such messages might also be candidates for the above mentioned -dev-announce
> ML as well.

+1

-Joe
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:30 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Seems to me that new dev announcements should be on [perhaps the
> announcement variant] of -dev, since they are related to the development
> team. It'd be nice to hear those announcements on the list devs are
> required to subscribe to, so all devs hear about new arrivals. As an
> IMHO, -dev (or variants) should be for topics of importance to
> *developers & development* (but not attacks/flame wars, politics, etc.,
> obviously), and not strictly limited to *technical/coding* issues, which
> seems a bit narrow.

Making it narrow should enforce people to stay on topic.

Topics of important to the Development Of Gentoo are more valid on
council, or trustees mailing lists. Recent example of this is the
discussion on licensing which fits in with your description of
developers and development. We assign copyright to the Gentoo Foundation
so the correct place for discussion is the trustees list.

Thanks

Roy

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:28:09AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> > I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
> > list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the creation of the
> > -project mailing (the thread itself is a prime example on why we need
> > -project in the first place) so how about we just get that mailing list
> > going right no and let the rest of it fall into place later. My guess is
> > that if we would have had -project for ages, the need for moderating
> > -dev would have never come about. I bet there are devs who have talked
> > about creating this kind of a list months, even years ago. This time
> > it's not about show me the code but show me the mailing list!
>
> Speaking strictly in an infra role here, and not a council role at all.
>
> If there is no opposition (because I suspect I might have missed it in
> the length of the previous thread) to the _creation_ of -project by Jul
> 18th 00h00 UTC, I'll create it.

The list is created now.

Along with other pending list requests that infra had.
gentoo-project
gentoo-lisp
gentoo-vdr
gentoo-dev-announce

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

070717 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
>> I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project list
>> so how about we just get that mailing list going right now
>> and let the rest of it fall into place later.
>> My guess is that if we would have had -project for ages,
>> the need for moderating -dev would have never come about.
> The list is created now, along with other pending list requests:
> gentoo-project
> gentoo-lisp
> gentoo-vdr
> gentoo-dev-announce

To this user since 2003, who plans to install Gentoo in the new machine
which I am presently designing, this sounds like a very welcome development.
I shall continue to subscribe to -dev , but not to -project.
Should I also subscribe to -dev-announce
or will its msgs be duplicated on -dev ?

Hopefully, all the devs can now get back to making Gentoo even better,
for which volunteer work I continue always to be grateful.

--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Philip Webb wrote:
>
> To this user since 2003, who plans to install Gentoo in the new machine
> which I am presently designing, this sounds like a very welcome development.
> I shall continue to subscribe to -dev , but not to -project.
> Should I also subscribe to -dev-announce
> or will its msgs be duplicated on -dev ?

Think of it as a filter; important things that are announcement-worthy will get
sent to -dev-announce, for people who want to keep on top of things w/o the
background noise.


> Hopefully, all the devs can now get back to making Gentoo even better,
> for which volunteer work I continue always to be grateful.

I, for one, welcome our new volunteering developer Overlords! </slashdot>



--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Philip Webb <purslow@sympatico.ca> posted
20070718032857.GD4940@sympatico.ca, excerpted below, on Tue, 17 Jul 2007
23:28:57 -0400:

> To this user since 2003, who plans to install Gentoo in the new machine
> which I am presently designing, this sounds like a very welcome
> development. I shall continue to subscribe to -dev , but not to
> -project. Should I also subscribe to -dev-announce or will its msgs be
> duplicated on -dev ?

You may in fact wish to subscribe to gentoo-project after all, as there
are a lot of people (myself included) hoping the traffic on -dev goes
down by at least 50%. I'm seriously hoping there'll be few non-dev posts
to dev, as while IMO non-devs should be free to post to -dev, it should
be development-technical only. I hope peer pressure forces that, with a
simple reminder that -project gets everything else, for any violators.

IOW, both your post and mine should now be going to -project (I expect to
be subscribing shortly). Ideally, there'll be little reason for us to
post to dev, tho I hope it remains such that we can. If it works,
there'll be little reason to go further with that moderation proposal.

So, unless you plan on being read-only on Gentoo discussions, I'd suggest
you do subscribe to -project, and strongly consider posting much of what
you've posted here in the past, there. That's what I'll be doing. If it
fails to work that way by peer pressure, it's likely to end up almost
forced that way, and I really hate to see that happen.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> posted 469CC922.1050702@gentoo.org, excerpted
below, on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:50:26 -0400:

> George Prowse wrote:
>>
>> So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the
>> -project list?
>
> My thinking, I think they would fit better over there, since it is
> somewhat non-technical. However, machine-generated notices of dev
> arrival or dev departure could be directed to other lists. There's been
> talk of a -dev-announce list as well; perhaps such automated messages of
> dev changes could be sent there in a fashion (either individually as one
> joins or one leaves, or in a weekly digest form summarizing the
> changes).

According to the bug on -project (which I was CCed to), both it and dev-
announce have been created.

New developers are announcements. The primary announcement should
therefore go to dev-announce, x-posted to dev, with followups going to
-project, since the followups are neither announcements nor dev-technical
and thus don't belong on either dev-announce or dev.

>> Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the
>> middle?
>
> I think package additions/removals should stay there, since they are
> development related, such as the removal due to bitrot or an unfixiable
> security flaw, etc.
> Such messages might also be candidates for the above mentioned
> -dev-announce ML as well.

Similarly here, the additions-removals initial post should go on dev-
announce (x-posted to dev, of course, as anything there should be, so
those that choose to can read only dev), with replies sent to dev.
Additions-removals doesn't get many replies, but last-rites mails are in
the same category and do. Replies to last-rites are dev material.

Do note, however, that when a last-rites is actually canceled, that's an
announcement that then belongs on dev-announce (xposted and followups to
dev).

That's my take on it, anyway.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Duncan wrote:
> Philip Webb <purslow@sympatico.ca> posted:
>> To this user since 2003, who plans to install Gentoo in the new machine
>> which I am presently designing, this sounds like a very welcome
>> development. I shall continue to subscribe to -dev , but not to
>> -project. Should I also subscribe to -dev-announce or will its msgs be
>> duplicated on -dev ?
>
> You may in fact wish to subscribe to gentoo-project after all, as there
> are a lot of people (myself included) hoping the traffic on -dev goes
> down by at least 50%. I'm seriously hoping there'll be few non-dev posts
> to dev, as while IMO non-devs should be free to post to -dev, it should
> be development-technical only. I hope peer pressure forces that, with a
> simple reminder that -project gets everything else, for any violators.
>
> IOW, both your post and mine should now be going to -project (I expect to
> be subscribing shortly). Ideally, there'll be little reason for us to
> post to dev, tho I hope it remains such that we can. If it works,
> there'll be little reason to go further with that moderation proposal.
>
> So, unless you plan on being read-only on Gentoo discussions, I'd suggest
> you do subscribe to -project, and strongly consider posting much of what
> you've posted here in the past, there. That's what I'll be doing. If it
> fails to work that way by peer pressure, it's likely to end up almost
> forced that way, and I really hate to see that happen.

It looks like what Philip is also asking here is whether he should
subscribe to *both* -dev *and* -dev-announce. I am curious about this
as well. It depends on whether all messages to -dev-announce are
relayed to -dev automatically. If so, then the user would want to
subscribe to *one* of the lists, not both. If not, then users would
want to subscribe to both lists if they want all traffic. I suspect
"not" is the way it was set up, since clearly all posts to the new
-dev-announce will not be technical, and so they should not be relayed
to -dev automatically. Anyone know?

-Joe

P.S. Duncan, +1 on your comments about use of the lists!
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Duncan wrote:
>
> According to the bug on -project (which I was CCed to), both it and dev-
> announce have been created.
>
> New developers are announcements. The primary announcement should
> therefore go to dev-announce, x-posted to dev, with followups going to
> -project, since the followups are neither announcements nor dev-technical
> and thus don't belong on either dev-announce or dev.
>
> Similarly here, the additions-removals initial post should go on dev-
> announce (x-posted to dev, of course, as anything there should be, so
> those that choose to can read only dev), with replies sent to dev.
> Additions-removals doesn't get many replies, but last-rites mails are in
> the same category and do. Replies to last-rites are dev material.
>
> ...
>
> That's my take on it, anyway.
>

[crossposting to -project to facilitate moving this thread over]

As usual, good ideas. One thing I'd say is that just because everything
isn't 100% figured it there is no reason not to start using the new
lists. And we can all try to be patient if somebody posts to the wrong
lists while things are being worked out. I'm sure practices will evolve
as makes sense.

Let's hope this initiative works out well! If the need for moderation
is mooted I think everybody will be happy!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnlL9G4/rWKZmVWkRAoCzAKCw+FWM05K3bE5vm25zrmtijH2cNwCgztVh
x2b59MY1CxMuOHdKWN6zBUQ=
=T45h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joe Peterson wrote:
> I suspect
> "not" is the way it was set up, since clearly all posts to the new
> -dev-announce will not be technical, and so they should not be relayed
> to -dev automatically. Anyone know?
>

I like the idea of auto-crossposting, but for those who need it here is
a nice procmail recipe to handle either case:

:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 msgid.cache

:0 a:
/dev/null

This maintains an 8k cache of message IDs and tosses any message it has
already seen. Then you can send both -dev and -dev-announce to the same
folder and get every message once.

If you're like me and have 14 email addresses forwarded to the same box
the rule is invaluable in general.

Note - I'm not responsible if the code above destroys your system or
loses mail - understand procmail before you use it...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnln+G4/rWKZmVWkRAtP9AKCbBVq97mw5LA0CjhaExvn7O8YqGACfY1RQ
/3awXBPpZfy0LfNVIaOMXuw=
=8oKZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 02:20:46PM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
> | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
> :0 a:
> /dev/null
I'd advise against this bit of procmail hackery.

I used to use it, until I ran into some MUAs that did not generate sane
message-ids (Lotus Notes, certain versions of Outlook, and some Linux
clients at various points in time). Collisions in message-ids are bad!

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Ryan Hill wrote:
> These are on gmane now as well. -dev-announce as RO and -project as RW.

I'm sure everyone is busy and this is already in the works, but updating the
list page [1] would be helpful as well -- along with any other documentation
that might be appropriate.

Is there a concise description of what goes where? I realize that there are the
bugs, but something that one can direct posters to may prove useful during the
transition phase.


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list