On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:05:38PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail. > I don't think that's useful. > > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track > is better. > > --Sheng > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > > So let me ask the question then. Right now there's 3 people who believes > > the agreement was cc if you know the recipient you want and it was not to > > change the reply to address. One person believes it was to change the > > reply-to address. Anyone else who thought that was the agreement? > > > > Only CC: Animesh, Alex, Brett > > Change reply-to: Sheng > > > > --Alex
I'll state for the record that I'm a -0 on this. I won't block it from happening, but I disagree with the change. I've already voiced my concerns about the whole CC'ing thing from the start. I respect the wishes of folks that want to be CC'ed, but struggle to get attention when all committers need to read something. It seems like a bad habit for people to expect to be CC'ed. But if the concensus is that CC'ing is good (and it seems that I may be a lone dissenter, or at least in a minority), then I still am not convinced that the list serv change was a good thing. First, it makes it much more complicated for new community members to "do the right thing" by keeping the list in the loop. Second, what if I don't want to be CC'ed on emails? If I did want to keep getting emails with me in the CC, then I could just CC myself on the initial message. As I said, I'm -0 on this... in disagreement, but not enough to disregard other people's preferences. -chip
