idea for header filter sources.redhat.com -> sourceware.org

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:20:33PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>cgf wrote:
>>>[...]  I was wondering what people thought about changing any
>>>occurrence of sources.redhat.com in the header to sourceware.org.
>>>[...]
>>
>>This kind of rewriting would probably violate some RFCs, so watch out
>>for the black helicopters.  Plus it would mess with header-sensitive
>>signatures.
>
>I'm okay with the principle, but if people are considering in the 
>(hopefully!) not terribly distant future a switch to a different list 
>manager, then given potential pain to people's list filters, I'd prefer 
>such upheaval was only done the once. Or if adding the second box would 
>mean some name changes regardless as operations get split between them.

I have been holding off of changing all of the sources.redhat.com
occurrences in the mailing lists to 'sourceware.org' for just this
reason.  I don't think this would have any effect on those unless people
are inappropriately filtering on the To: or Cc: address.  If they are then
some of their email is already being misfiled.

>BTW, in the case of eCos, that would want to be sources.redhat.com ->
>ecos.sourceware.org ideally.  I speak from a position of blissful
>ignorance as to how easy it is to do that ;).

Yes, that's a good point.  I'd want all of the cygwin lists to go to
cygwin.com, too.  This should be trivial although doing it "right" would
really mean asking ezmlm what the official name is supposed to be.

>>>I'd like to do this because I think we've all come to the conclusion
>>>that the system is is more accurately viewed as a generic box [...]
>>
>>
>>Well, no, not all of us.  Some minor acknowledgement of Red Hat's
>>special contribution should not be wiped out except upon its
>>initiative.
>
>It could be fitting that in exchange for the reduced visibility of the
>RH name, if each project on sourceware considered putting a little
>"thankyou" to RH for providing the hosting and facilities, perhaps just
>in a footer of their front pages or somewhere appropriate.  I don't
>know if thank yous for hosting are considered ok by the FSF for their
>projects.

That's more or less what we already do with cygwin.  People still think
that Red Hat is responsible for "supporting" Cygwin, though.  Hopefully
they don't think that about eCos anymore, although they do seem to think
that it is the case for Insight.

>RH rightly deserve their due credit.  But I've certainly talked to
>people who think RH own or manage some of the projects on here, or are
>responsible for its operation or maintenance.

Me, too.  I agree that Red Hat should get appropriate credit for hosting
the system but I don't see any reason to confuse people.

cgf