[Catalog-sig] Merge catalog-sig and distutils-sig
donald at stufft.io
Thu Mar 28 20:42:07 CET 2013
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <fred at fdrake.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>>> Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate?
>> 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:
>> and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no
>> +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
> 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.
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Catalog-SIG