29 Jul
2002
29 Jul
'02
11:48 p.m.
"JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <jason@mastaler.com> writes:
JRM> barry@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
>> I agree this would be ideal, but I wouldn't do it for MM2.1.
JRM> Why not? Just because it would involve more changes than are
JRM> appropriate for a release in beta?Yes, and because we currently have no database that's shared across mailing lists. Issues I don't want to think about include concurrent access to a shared database.
>> Certainly for MM3.0 when we have a federated user database,
>> this makes perfect sense.
JRM> I'm not familiar with a ``federated user database''.One user database shared by all mailing lists. This will be the primary focus of Mailman 3.0.
-Barry