[Catalog-sig] Merge catalog-sig and distutils-sig

Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io
Thu Mar 28 21:32:16 CET 2013

On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:04 PM, holger krekel <holger at 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 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?
>>>> 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 at 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20130328/d23342ed/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list