Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate? It seems to me that most of the same people are on both lists, and the topics almost always have consequences to both sides of the coin. So much so that it's often hard to pick *which* of the two (or both) lists you post too. Further confused by the fact that distutils is hopefully someday going to go away :) Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
As a mostly-lurker on both who would love to cut down on the number of lists I have to follow: a hearty +1! Jacob On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
It seems to me that most of the same people are on both lists, and the topics almost always have consequences to both sides of the coin. So much so that it's often hard to pick *which* of the two (or both) lists you post too. Further confused by the fact that distutils is hopefully someday going to go away :)
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
Not IMO.
It seems to me that most of the same people are on both lists, and the topics almost always have consequences to both sides of the coin. So much so that it's often hard to pick *which* of the two (or both) lists you post too. Further confused by the fact that distutils is hopefully someday going to go away :)
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
+1 Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 14:22 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
It seems to me that most of the same people are on both lists, and the topics almost always have consequences to both sides of the coin. So much so that it's often hard to pick *which* of the two (or both) lists you post too. Further confused by the fact that distutils is hopefully someday going to go away :)
+1
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
No. The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point worry about that.
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no discussion: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt +1 on merging the lists. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at fdrake.net> "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <fred@fdrake.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
No.
The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point worry about that.
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig
and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no discussion:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt
+1 on merging the lists.
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive. All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <fred@fdrake.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
No.
The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point worry about that.
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig
and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no discussion:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt
+1 on merging the lists.
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Don't care how it's done. I don't know Mailman enough to know what is possible or how easy things are. I thought packaging-sig sounded nice but if you can't rename + redirect or merge or something in mailman I'm down for whatever. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 15:42 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <fred@fdrake.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
No.
The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point worry about that.
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig
and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no discussion:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt
+1 on merging the lists.
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Don't care how it's done. I don't know Mailman enough to know what is possible or how easy things are. I thought packaging-sig sounded nice but if you can't rename + redirect or merge or something in mailman I'm down for whatever.
I've moved lists even from external sites to python.org and renamed them (latest was pytest-dev). That part works nicely and people can continue to use the old ML address. Merging two lists however makes it harder to get redirects for the old archives. But why not just keep distutils-sig and catalog-sig archives, but have all their mail arrive at a new packaging-sig and begin a new archive for the latter? holger
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
That should work. Sounds like a plan. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:04 PM, holger krekel <holger@merlinux.eu> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 15:42 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <fred@fdrake.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
No.
The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point worry about that.
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig
and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no discussion:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt
+1 on merging the lists.
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Don't care how it's done. I don't know Mailman enough to know what is possible or how easy things are. I thought packaging-sig sounded nice but if you can't rename + redirect or merge or something in mailman I'm down for whatever.
I've moved lists even from external sites to python.org and renamed them (latest was pytest-dev). That part works nicely and people can continue to use the old ML address. Merging two lists however makes it harder to get redirects for the old archives. But why not just keep distutils-sig and catalog-sig archives, but have all their mail arrive at a new packaging-sig and begin a new archive for the latter?
holger
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:04 PM, holger krekel <holger@merlinux.eu> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 15:42 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <fred@fdrake.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
No.
The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point worry about that.
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig
and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no discussion:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt
+1 on merging the lists.
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Don't care how it's done. I don't know Mailman enough to know what is possible or how easy things are. I thought packaging-sig sounded nice but if you can't rename + redirect or merge or something in mailman I'm down for whatever.
I've moved lists even from external sites to python.org and renamed them (latest was pytest-dev). That part works nicely and people can continue to use the old ML address. Merging two lists however makes it harder to get redirects for the old archives. But why not just keep distutils-sig and catalog-sig archives, but have all their mail arrive at a new packaging-sig and begin a new archive for the latter?
holger
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
sounds good to me. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
On Mar 28, 2013, at 03:42 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
Don't care how it's done. I don't know Mailman enough to know what is possible or how easy things are. I thought packaging-sig sounded nice but if you can't rename + redirect or merge or something in mailman I'm down for whatever.
Renaming can be done, but it's a bit of a pain. Of course, we can keep the archives for any retired list, so urls don't need to break. OTOH, it's definitely easier just to keep distutils-sig and retire catalog-sig. -Barry
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <fred@fdrake.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
No.
The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point worry about that.
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig
and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no discussion:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt
+1 on merging the lists.
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Worst case I'm sure subscribers can be transferred and the existing archive kept intact. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Worst case I'm sure subscribers can be transferred and the existing archive kept intact.
That's a great way to have a bunch of people complaining that they never subscribed to packaging-sig, not to mention the part where it breaks everyone's mail filters. I really don't see any gains for renaming the list. It's not like we can go and scrub the entire internet of references to distutils-sig.
C'mon, folks, we're arguing about a name. That's about as close to literal bikeshedding as we could get. How about we just let whoever has the keys make the change in whatever way's easiest and most logical for them? Jacob
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <jacob@jacobian.org> wrote:
C'mon, folks, we're arguing about a name. That's about as close to literal bikeshedding as we could get.
I'm not arguing about the *name*. I just don't see the point in making everybody subscribe to a new list and change their mail filters (and update every book and webpage out there that mentions the distutils-sig), because a few people want to *change* the name -- a change that AFAICT doesn't actually provide any tangible benefit to anybody whatsoever.
How about we just let whoever has the keys make the change in whatever way's easiest and most logical for them?
Because it's not up to just the person with the keys. Neither SIG is a mere mailing list, it's a Python special interest group, and SIGs have their own formation and termination processes. In particular, if you're going to start a new SIG, one of the requirements to be met is "in particular, no other SIG nor the general Python newsgroup is already more suitable" (per the Python SIG Creation Guidelines). It's hard to argue that distutils-sig isn't already more suitable than whatever is being proposed to take its place.
On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:28 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <jacob@jacobian.org> wrote:
C'mon, folks, we're arguing about a name. That's about as close to literal bikeshedding as we could get.
I'm not arguing about the *name*. I just don't see the point in making everybody subscribe to a new list and change their mail filters (and update every book and webpage out there that mentions the distutils-sig), because a few people want to *change* the name -- a change that AFAICT doesn't actually provide any tangible benefit to anybody whatsoever.
How about we just let whoever has the keys make the change in whatever way's easiest and most logical for them?
Because it's not up to just the person with the keys. Neither SIG is a mere mailing list, it's a Python special interest group, and SIGs have their own formation and termination processes.
In particular, if you're going to start a new SIG, one of the requirements to be met is "in particular, no other SIG nor the general Python newsgroup is already more suitable" (per the Python SIG Creation Guidelines). It's hard to argue that distutils-sig isn't already more suitable than whatever is being proposed to take its place.
A requirement for a SIG is also that it has a clear goal and a start and end date. distutils-sig's goal is the distutils module. And the "end date" requirements seems to be completely ignored anymore so arguing strict adherence to the rules seems to be a wash. I suggested packaging-sig because discussion jumps back and forth between distutils-sig and catalog-sig and neither name nor stated goal really reflected what the sig was actually about which was packaging in python in general. I also suggested packaging because it matched the other current sigs which are generic topics and not about a single module. But whatever, I hate the pointless duplication and just want to kill the overlap. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
But whatever, I hate the pointless duplication and just want to kill the overlap.
Agree, +1 to merging into one list. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:28 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <jacob@jacobian.org> wrote:
C'mon, folks, we're arguing about a name. That's about as close to literal bikeshedding as we could get.
I'm not arguing about the *name*. I just don't see the point in making everybody subscribe to a new list and change their mail filters (and update every book and webpage out there that mentions the distutils-sig), because a few people want to *change* the name -- a change that AFAICT doesn't actually provide any tangible benefit to anybody whatsoever.
How about we just let whoever has the keys make the change in whatever way's easiest and most logical for them?
Because it's not up to just the person with the keys. Neither SIG is a mere mailing list, it's a Python special interest group, and SIGs have their own formation and termination processes.
In particular, if you're going to start a new SIG, one of the requirements to be met is "in particular, no other SIG nor the general Python newsgroup is already more suitable" (per the Python SIG Creation Guidelines). It's hard to argue that distutils-sig isn't already more suitable than whatever is being proposed to take its place.
A requirement for a SIG is also that it has a clear goal and a start and end date. distutils-sig's goal is the distutils module. And the "end date" requirements seems to be completely ignored anymore so arguing strict adherence to the rules seems to be a wash.
I suggested packaging-sig because discussion jumps back and forth between distutils-sig and catalog-sig and neither name nor stated goal really reflected what the sig was actually about which was packaging in python in general. I also suggested packaging because it matched the other current sigs which are generic topics and not about a single module. But whatever, I hate the pointless duplication and just want to kill the overlap.
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
I think I'm the only one on the list who probably would have objected but I'm on both now so whatever :-) Richard On 29 March 2013 07:32, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Worst case I'm sure subscribers can be transferred and the existing archive kept intact.
That's a great way to have a bunch of people complaining that they never subscribed to packaging-sig, not to mention the part where it breaks everyone's mail filters.
I really don't see any gains for renaming the list. It's not like we can go and scrub the entire internet of references to distutils-sig. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/28/2013 04:32 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Worst case I'm sure subscribers can be transferred and the existing archive kept intact.
That's a great way to have a bunch of people complaining that they never subscribed to packaging-sig, not to mention the part where it breaks everyone's mail filters.
I really don't see any gains for renaming the list. It's not like we can go and scrub the entire internet of references to distutils-sig.
Not to mention breaking the gmane.org gateway, and those of us who sip the firehose there instead of trying to swallow it via e-mail. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFUuS4ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4zXACguC0D2F3EEE7GT4DGXRa08hy7 FdYAoM56YpHef9J0ScKOdY2OHv/48LOv =3UtH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mar 28, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
Signed PGP part On 03/28/2013 04:32 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig archive.
All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about "distribution utilities", after all.
Worst case I'm sure subscribers can be transferred and the existing archive kept intact.
That's a great way to have a bunch of people complaining that they never subscribed to packaging-sig, not to mention the part where it breaks everyone's mail filters.
I really don't see any gains for renaming the list. It's not like we can go and scrub the entire internet of references to distutils-sig.
Not to mention breaking the gmane.org gateway, and those of us who sip the firehose there instead of trying to swallow it via e-mail.
Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
This problem is inherent no matter what name is picked. GMane will need updated and some messages will need sent to tell people about the new name. No matter what at least one name isn't going to be used anymore. It's not that big of a deal. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
It seems to me that most of the same people are on both lists, and the topics almost always have consequences to both sides of the coin. So much so that it's often hard to pick *which* of the two (or both) lists you post too. Further confused by the fact that distutils is hopefully someday going to go away :)
Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to umbrella the entire packaging topics.
+1 -- Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@nexB.com DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.com nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com
On Mar 28, 2013, at 02:22 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
Without yet reading the whole thread, I'll just mention that it's probably easier to just retire one or the other mailing lists and divert all discussion to the other one. Of course, the archives for the retired list would be retained for historical purposes. In fact, sigs are *supposed* to be periodically reviewed for renewal or retirement, though I think practically speaking we haven't done that in a very long time. If there's consensus on what you want to do, please contact postmaster@ and let them know. Let's say you just want to retire catalog-sig: we can set up forwards to distutils-sig and let the former be an "acceptable alias" to the latter so postings will be accepted when addressed to either. Of course, folks on the defunct list should manually subscribe to the good list (i.e. opt-in). -Barry
participants (13)
-
Barry Warsaw -
Daniel Holth -
Dennis Coldwell -
Donald Stufft -
Fred Drake -
holger krekel -
Jacob Kaplan-Moss -
Jim Fulton -
Marcus Smith -
Philippe Ombredanne -
PJ Eby -
Richard Jones -
Tres Seaver