Mailing List Archive: patches reply-to (was: Python 1.6 timing)

patches reply-to (was: Python 1.6 timing)

Feb 2, 2000, 5:35 PM

Post #1 of 4 (645 views)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us wrote:
> >>>>> "MZ" == Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il> writes:
> MZ> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us wrote:
>
> >> Mine's just one vote, but I really do not want to see patches
> >> floated on python-dev.
>
> MZ> How 'bout a seperate list with a Reply-To: python-dev?
>
> That would work for me. I need to hack Mailman a little to add this
> feature, but it could be done.

Note that I requested this feature for Mailman a while back. I'd like to
use it for the "checkin" mailing lists that I run. Send to checkins,
respond to the discussion list. Currently, my CVS automailer just inserts
a Reply-To:, but it would be nice to have it directly on the mailing list
itself. (view it more as a Followup-To: for mailers, rather than Reply-To
munging)

In this particular case, I think the "patches mailing list" would be a
self-contained list discussing a *patch*. Sure, it could certainly migrate
to python-dev when appropriate, but I think the majority of the discussion
should stay on the patches list. Otherwise, we'd just be spamming the -dev
list as if the patches list didn't exist.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: patches reply-to (was: Python 1.6 timing) [ In reply to ]

moshez at math

Feb 2, 2000, 5:37 PM

Post #2 of 4 (637 views)

Permalink

On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Greg Stein wrote:

> In this particular case, I think the "patches mailing list" would be a
> self-contained list discussing a *patch*. Sure, it could certainly migrate
> to python-dev when appropriate, but I think the majority of the discussion
> should stay on the patches list. Otherwise, we'd just be spamming the -dev
> list as if the patches list didn't exist.

I retract my suggestion. Have python-patch, python-patch-discuss
(python-patch would be replied-to: python-patch-discuss) and keep
python-dev as a clean list. This way, people could just subscribe to
python-patch, and when they get a patch they're interested in, they could
subscribe to the discuss mailing list. That way, people could also
subscribe to python-patch-discuss without subscribing to python-patch, to
avoid the large attachments that would be sent by python-patch. Of course,
mailman's new feature would automatically extract those attachments and
post them up, so they can be downloaded by non-subscribers.

enough-with-the-blabber-let's-just-get-something-going-ly y'rs, Z.

--
Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>.
INTERNET: Learn what you know.
Share what you don't.

Re: patches reply-to [ In reply to ]

gstein at lyra

Feb 2, 2000, 5:50 PM

Post #3 of 4 (639 views)

Permalink

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Moshe Zadka wrote:
>...
> I retract my suggestion. Have python-patch, python-patch-discuss
> (python-patch would be replied-to: python-patch-discuss) and keep
> python-dev as a clean list. This way, people could just subscribe to
> python-patch, and when they get a patch they're interested in, they could
> subscribe to the discuss mailing list. That way, people could also
> subscribe to python-patch-discuss without subscribing to python-patch, to
> avoid the large attachments that would be sent by python-patch. Of course,
> mailman's new feature would automatically extract those attachments and
> post them up, so they can be downloaded by non-subscribers.

Guido/Barry can decide on the final structure, but I'd recommend something
a bit different:

1) drop the python- prefix. These are @python.org
2) just have "patches@python.org"

I'm assuming the mailing list would be Guido-approved and the people on it
would be required to "deal with the patch size". I think an open list
might generate some noise rather than just "work". But again: the
structure is ultimately up to Guido.

Oops. I see a post from Guido saying "let's do it." In that case, it is
probably best to move this discussion to the new list. I believe we need a
statement of subscription policy from Guido. Or at least something to the
effect of "python-dev members are free to subscribe, but you are expected
to directly/positively contribute." I am presuming in all cases, that it
would be administratively closed to non-python-dev members.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: patches reply-to (was: Python 1.6 timing) [ In reply to ]

fdrake at acm

Feb 3, 2000, 8:09 AM

Post #4 of 4 (640 views)

Permalink

Moshe Zadka writes:
> I retract my suggestion. Have python-patch, python-patch-discuss
> (python-patch would be replied-to: python-patch-discuss) and keep
> python-dev as a clean list. This way, people could just subscribe to

I'd be fine with this as well.
If Ping can release his issue-tracker any time soon, that would also
be a really nice tool. That was quite impressive.

-Fred

--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives