Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:31:04PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: >> On 2015-10-12, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> >> > We can live with a few missing messages on lyx-cvs, as long as this >> > gets sorted out eventually. >> >> > I propose that you commit your patches yourself and tell us about it on >> > lyx-devel and that, in parallel, we try to fix this subscription >> > problem. >> >> I believe that any commit message should go to lyx-cvs, just check for >> some sign that this is an auto-generated message from the versioning >> system. Authorisation is checked by the VS already. >> Actgually, if there were unauthnorized activity on the repository, it >> would be even more important to get this known on lyx-cvs.
lyx-cvs is not a security device. > Agreed. I think everyone agrees that this is how it should work. The > more relevant question is what to do considering it does not work that > way. Fixing it would be nice but I don't even know who to contact about > that. > >> Therefore, I don'tg want to waste time in trying to find out how I can >> subscribe to a list and set up a spam filter to reliably kill the >> incoming messages. > > OK We are talking about a one time effort of at most half an hour for one person only. Subscribing to lyx-cvs with lyx.org addresses works in general (one could ask Guillaume how he did it if it is unclear how it works), and setting up a filter in the google mail account is easy as well. Please relate this effort to the time which is wasted by requiring other developers to work around that personal preference. >> I can live withn just supplying pathches or with your proposed procedure >> (post announcdement to lyx-devel manually). > > If we are not able to fix things, then I see two solutions: There is no alternative to fixing things IMHO, be it either the clean solution where the git-daemon is automatically authenticated to send to the list, or be it the solution everybody else is using to subscribe to the list. > 1. You post your patches and then other LyX developers commit your > patches. > > 2. You commit your patches and you send an email with the exact same > patch you just committed. This notifies everyone of your commit and also > allows us to easily comment on the code if we choose to. > > JMarc proposed (2), if I understood correctly. I prefer (2) over (1) > also. > > Any other opinions? 1) is a waste of time IMHO and effectively revoking commit privileges (which is not a good idea either). 2) is a good temporary workaround, but not a long term solution IMHO. Georg
