-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Are you completely uninterested how the ports are going on?
No, I am not "completely uninteresed".
But my interest is not so high to receive all those mails...
Please, let's postpone this discussion until announceme
On Jan 16, Guy Maor wrote:
> Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Chris, who's spammed people with m68k uploads and is currently being
> > spammed by sparc and alpha uploads.
>
> Surely you can program your mailer to throw away the mails about archs
> that you're not interested in?
I
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris, who's spammed people with m68k uploads and is currently being
> spammed by sparc and alpha uploads.
Surely you can program your mailer to throw away the mails about archs
that you're not interested in?
Guy
---Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > > > Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings
in
> > > > debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that
list by
> > > > architecture.
> > >
>
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
> > > debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
> > > architecture.
> >
> > Why not just use scoring in Gnus?
>
> We not just creat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 14 Jan 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
> > debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
> > archit
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
> debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
> architecture.
Why not just use scoring in Gnus?
em to have forgotten to CC to the list. Thanks for quoting me!)
Just for completeness, here is my reply:
Personally, I like the idea of splitting debian-devel-changes very much.
Note, that we have already discussed a new uploading procedure where
announcements will be sent by a script from mas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Well, as Christian Schwarz has pointed out to me (and I agree), it would
be better to postpone this debate until the "new uploading procedure" is
approved and installed (see the next "policy weekly posting").
Thanks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3
On Thu, Jan 08, 1998 at 06:43:55PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> I think a more complete approach is needed for this issue. Other things
> which should be considered:
> - Possibly a more compact format for upload announcements for binary-only
> recompiles.
What rushes to my mind is another t
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
> debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
> architecture.
I think a more complete approach is needed for this issue. Other things
which should be considered:
- Changin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
architecture.
Two proposals:
1. "The easy one": Use debian-devel-changes for source packages, i386
packages, and binary-all packages, as
12 matches
Mail list logo
