On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Vincent Cheng <vch...@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:01:10PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: >>> >>> I can't find a reference right now, but I seem to recall that one of >>> the Alioth admins pointed out that mailing lists specifically for >>> package/bug tracking purposes (i.e. not used for discussion) shouldn't >>> be migrated to lists.d.o. I don't know what other alternatives there >>> are, however. I haven't really kept up with the Alioth >>> migration/deprecation as you can probably tell. :) >> >> I thought there a difference between package-specific mailing lists >> and groups that maintain a large number of packages (e.g., python, X, >> etc.) But I could be wrong. I thought the lists.alioth.debian.org >> was only guaranteed to be around for a year, but we do have time to >> figure out what to do. > > It's certainly worth a try to see if the lists.d.o admins would allow > the creation of a filesystems-devel list. Do we need someone to > volunteer to be list admin for the new list? I did so when I requested > for the old alioth list to be migrated to alioth-lists.d.n, but that > was mostly to prevent RC bugs from kicking f2fs-tools out of testing, > and not because I particularly enjoy being a list admin.
It looks like there's no need to nominate a specific person as list admin, so I went ahead and filed #906898 to request that debian-filesystems@l.d.o be created. If that falls through, maybe we could piggyback on debian-kernel or some other list? Regards, Vincent