[Mailman-Users] Mailman roadmap
Krystal F. Zipfel
zipfel at greenacrestechnology.com
Sat Jul 7 22:23:03 CEST 2007
Hello Barry (and all),
I may have a few more coming from my colleagues regarding this, but I do
have one point I'd like to mention. Not sure if it's ever been given
Currently, Mailman looks at the list-name as strictly "list-name", instead
of "list-name at domain". Why I bring this up?
I have a set of servers (eight, in fact) running several thousand lists
(about 10,000 of them), all from different people with different domains.
Many of these users often pick the same list name, which we of course make
them pick a new list name. Reason being, having two list names identical
on one server causes delivery problems, file storage, database problems,
log problems, the works.
Is there any consideration made, or is it possible to have Mailman
recognize that "listname at domaina.com" is different than
"listname at domainb.com", and operate as normal based on that?
Just a thought. :-) Glad to see Mailman on the move!
----- Original Message ----
From: Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org>
To: Mailman Developers <Mailman-Developers at python.org>
Cc: Mailman Users <mailman-users at python.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2007 12:36:54 PM
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman roadmap
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sorry, I forgot to cross-post this to mailman-users, so I'm reposting.
Now that we've successfully navigated the switch to Bazaar, it's time
to lay out plans for future Mailman releases. I've talked to several
people about what to do about Mailman's future and I'd like to take
this opportunity to describe my thoughts and get your feedback.
First some background.
Mailman 2.1 is (shockingly) four and a half years old, having been
initially released on 30-Dec-2002. The last release in the series,
2.1.9 was made almost a year ago. In the meantime, Mark and Tokio
have been doing a great job maintaining the 2.1 branch, with several
important patches in the tree now that will eventually become
2.1.10. The problem of course is that we can't add any new features
to the 2.1 family <wink>, so we should be thinking about a new major
I've been making good progress on the SQAlchemy/Elixir version, which
will finally get rid of pickles and put Mailman on a Real Database
(tm). It's been clear to me for a while that this branch will have a
unified user database. It simply makes no sense to build the
database back-end without once and for all fixing this design
constraint. I've always said that the unified user database will be
in Mailman 3, and thus this branch is indeed called "Mailman 3.0".
I've been slowly building things back up from the ground floor. The
basic data model is in pretty good shape and I'm taking a religious
test-driven approach to making things work again. But the branch
still needs a lot of work, and I have no ETA for Mailman 3.0.
In the meantime, Andrew Kuchling and others have volunteered to work
on modernizing the Mailman web u/i, and Terri recently started a
thread discussing updates to the archiver. I think it makes sense to
bless these efforts, towards the goal of releasing them in Mailman
2.2. I intend to create an official Mailman 2.2 branch in bzr where
these efforts can land as they mature. My hope of course is that
we'll also be able to use much of this new code for Mailman 3.
I'd like to keep the changes for 2.2 focused on the web u/i and
archiver, with a small number of additional features to be
determined. Mailman 2.2 should see no changes to the basic
architecture or 'database'; we'll continue to use pickles by default
for Mailman 2.2. While I won't rule out other new features, I want
to be very picky about those that are accepted for 2.2, and would not
feel bad at all if we rejected or deferred until 3.0 most of those
proposed. Criteria for other 2.2 features must include minimal code
impact with a high degree of reliability and stability.
I plan on updating the wiki pages to reflect this thinking, but I
would like to get feedback from y'all about the plan. It would be
awesome if we could see a release of Mailman 2.2 some time in late
2007 or early 2008.
More information about the Mailman-Users