This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Too many mailing lists
- From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon at yandex dot ru>
- To: Warren Young <warren at etr-usa dot com>, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:12:49 +0400
- Subject: Re: Too many mailing lists
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53A4A299 dot 6090508 at etr-usa dot com> <1434055512 dot 20140622052307 at yandex dot ru> <53A875C1 dot 10507 at etr-usa dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
Greetings, Warren Young!
>> 5. cygwin-patches
>> This one's going to be missing as soon as the Cygwin repo is migrated to Git,
> Are you imagining Github style managed pull requests here? I expect
> Cygwin will be using their own hosting, which means you don't get that
> feature. That means you still need somewhere to email pull requests or
> patches, since we can predict in advance private email won't be allowed.
I'm not imagining anything, I'm just relaying my very own opinion.
>> 6. cygwin-developers
>> I think it's clear from the name. The list for developers of Cygwin itself.
> Are you sure it isn't for developers who use Cygwin?
Yes, i'm sure. May be because 1800 words isn't much for me, or anyone, who can
I didn't even read it thoroughly. A quick diagonal reading is enough to grasp
the basic idea.
> Yes, I know all of these questions are answered on the 1,800 word list
> of rules about which list is for what. This is exactly the problem:
> that we need 1,800 words to direct traffic to 7 interactive lists.
The problem is that people don't know how to f'n read... and that it's
required to actually hammer some simple ideas into their thick heads.
Don't take it personally, it's just... I've seen it many times, and I
perfectly understand the reasoning behind the lengthy explanation of each
mailing list intended audience. You read it once, and even if you only read
every second or third word, it will still sink into your brain, that this or
that list is NOT the right list for idle chatter.
> My proposal takes only 36 words to direct traffic to 3 lists:
> "Is it completely off topic? TITTL. Does it affect the development of
> Cygwin the project? Send it to -devel. No to both? It's probably of
> general interest, then, so it should go to the main list."
Many people already subscribed to the list in digest mode. Which makes it
a headache to follow, when they start posting to the list, breaking threads
into many tiny pieces. Your proposal will only increase this issue.
That aside other concerns raised by people in response to your suggestion.
>> 7. cygwin-licensing a list for people who need some lawe.
>> I have no interest in this kind of questions, but I see them popping around
>> every now and then. I don't understand them, but it seems, they are rather
>> important for some people.
> There's about one new thread a year on that list. Shall we move
> discussion of...oh, I don't know....Cygwin's lilypond package off onto
> its own mailing list, too?
> (Not picking on lilypond, just trying to think of another package with
> about one thread per year worth of interest here.)
I said I don't understand, neither care for it's existence.
If you are picking on me, it's a futile effort. I'm nearly impervious to
>> (Of course, I'm not including the results from late... erm... "discussion"...
>> you know, which one I mean... where it was explicitly stated to "go away", and
>> explained, why.)
> I started this thread as a result of a different discussion than the one
> I think you mean:
I won't be the one to judge here. I have my own ****load of "fixes" on hand
right now, that I did not asked for. God bless, it'll be finished this week,
and I could return to a normal life.
>> I can only see seven lists,
> About 4 too many, IMO.
It's okay. Having a private opinion is what differentiate an individual from
>> of which one is barely cygwin-related,
> Which one is that?
> The other 5 you have identified all seem entirely Cygwin-related to me.
>> one is unrelated,
> Which one is that?
Talk, of course.
>> and three are developers-only mailing lists.
> Are you sure that three is better than one?
If developers see it convenient to keep discussions on separate topics
separately, I see no reason to judge them.
If it was for me, I'd probably did the same separation, as the current one.
For the same reasons we have it the way it is. It's just convenient.
Andrey Repin (firstname.lastname@example.org) 25.06.2014, <03:55>
Sorry for my terrible english...
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple