Hi Jon! Jon Dowland wrote: > >ITP bugs are copied to debian-devel@. The intention, I think, is to make >sure that they have many eyes on them. ITP bugs often get feedback from >readers of debian-devel. > >I think this is valuable. However, it's one job/task/role, and sometimes >One wishes to focus on other jobs/tasks/roles instead. When I subscribed >to debian-devel directly, I most often filtered ITP mail into a separate >mailbox, to read at separate times. Nowadays, I read most Debian lists >via NNTP gateways, and filtering ITPs is not quite so convenient (not >least, because I don't easily have an analogue of the ITP-dedicated >mailbox I used to.). But besides me, I think a better "default" for >debian-devel would be not to have the ITPs. > >I think the ITP mails can make reading the rest of the list difficult >without extra local filtering or steps. Some times they are the >majority of the list traffic. I think it would be better if >ITP mail went to a separate, dedicated list, e.g. "debian-itp" to which >contributors are encouraged to subscribe and participate.
To be honest, I think if we did that we'd lose just about all the reviews that currently happen. The whole point of sending ITPs to d-devel is that they will be seen by a wider audience, but I can't see many signing up for YA mailing list for them. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
