ubscribed (or allowed to post) to
>> the dev list.
>
>
> IIRC (not a sure thing ;) it was set up this way so that the Gump team
> knows
> who to nag when something breaks and doesn't get fixed. These days, I seem
> to only see Gump nags when the whole lot fails for som
On 20/06/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/20/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Gump nag messages are currently sent from lots of different mail
> > addresses, all of which have to be subscribed (or allowed to post) to
> > the dev list.
> >
> > I think we shoul
to post) to
> > the dev list.
>
>
>
> IIRC (not a sure thing ;) it was set up this way so that the Gump team knows
> who to nag when something breaks and doesn't get fixed.
Good point.
> These days, I seem
> to only see Gump nags when the whole lot fails for some rea
t the Gump team knows
who to nag when something breaks and doesn't get fixed. These days, I seem
to only see Gump nags when the whole lot fails for some reason, so I'm not
sure how useful having the individual names is any more.
--
Martin Cooper
> I think we should just use:
>
>
On 6/20/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Gump nag messages are currently sent from lots of different mail
> addresses, all of which have to be subscribed (or allowed to post) to
> the dev list.
>
> I think we should just use:
>
> Gump
>
> for them all.
>
Makes sense to me. Or even:
The Gump nag messages are currently sent from lots of different mail
addresses, all of which have to be subscribed (or allowed to post) to
the dev list.
I think we should just use:
Gump
for them all.
This would avoid any problems if the real person from whom the mail is
supposed to come decide
