On Sunday 20 December 2009 15:04:12 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 20-12-2009 15:01:30 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday 20 December 2009 09:49:09 Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > > > I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to > > > > prepare the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free > > > > to reply to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting > > > > reminder approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be > > > > sending a message about the two topics which did not make it last > > > > time and explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but > > > > well... you know... > > > > > > I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of > > > -dev-announce and -dev. I'd propose to at least implement the > > > following behaviour such that I: > > > - don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times > > > - don't get lost where the mail is/was > > > - get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another > > > list > > > > get a sane mail client that automatically handles messages with duplicate > > ids and references. cant say ive ever noticed a problem with kmail. > > and gmane or even archives.g.o?
gmane is f-ed up already irregardless of what we do. it eats cross-posted e- mails for breakfast and doesnt tell anyone. as for archives.g.o, file a bug if it isnt handling threading within a list properly. i dont really see how your proposal here would break archives.g.o anyways. someone sends an e-mail to both dev and dev-announce, it has the same id. people respond and they all go to dev. either way, archives.g.o should be seeing a sane thread on dev. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
