date:20110313

Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

2011-03-13 Thread Shachar Shemesh


On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote:


Shachar Shemeshshac...@debian.org  writes:

   

Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with
the list software.
 

While this shouldn't turn into a counting of popularity, I'd like to
register that there are people who think the list behaviour currently
(leave the Reply-To field untouched) is correct.
   
Never mentioned Reply-To, don't think Reply-To munging is correct, and 
don't understand why you brought it up. When talking about change to the 
list software, I was referring to the Avoid duplicates option, 
discussed below.




I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those
lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically.
This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the
list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list
hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two
copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the
replies to my own emails.
 

If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the
extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration?
   

Any suggestions on how to do it?

Conversely, I *don't* want any message to the forum to also be sent to
me individually via email.

In some cases that's because the individual message arrives first, is
often read first, yet is the one that I want to avoid receiving. No
filter can help with that, since it has no “other copy” to work with at
the time it's needed.

In other cases that's because I don't participate in the forum via email
at all, so I don't want to receive any messages in that forum via email.
   
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I will point out that 
disregarding unwanted messages is easier to do with filters than 
generating new ones (and, more importantly, automatically figuring out 
for which messages duplicates should be generated).
   

I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a
mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers,
because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for
whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem
is that I cannot tell them apart.
 

Why do you need to tell those classes of people apart? Why is being
unable to tell them apart a problem?
   
As an example - the list charter clearly states that if someone 
indicates they wish to receive a copy you should CC him. I do not think 
I could have more clearly indicated my wish to do so than in my previous 
email, and yet you didn't. The reason I need to tell those apart from 
those is because that's what the list's charter says I should do. This 
is impossible to follow, and therefor should be amended.
   

Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be
reply to all (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a
conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said
third party off from the reply)
 

I object to this idea quite strongly.

The “forgot to include someone” mistake you identify is easily rectified
after the message is sent; the “included someone whom I didn't intend”
is impossible to rectify after the fact. For that reason among others,
“reply to all” should not be the default but should be a deliberate
decision in each instance.
   
I totally accept that argument in the context of automatically adding 
reply to to lists, but not as a code of conduct for email at large. 
This is why I specifically said non-mailing list communication.


If I wrote you an email, and thought it necessary to CC someone, then 
this discussion is obviously part of a discussion said someone need to 
be aware of. It would be impolite of you to exclude him from your answer 
unless there is a good reason to do so. In other words, the default (not 
the software's default - your default as a human) should be to reply to 
all. There is a growing trend to make hitting reply to all illegitimate 
under any and all circumstances, which I think is in error.
   

The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software
such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called
avoid duplicates.
 

I'm not a “user” recognised by the mailing list servers of many of the
forums in which I participate, so your proposal is not a solution for my
case. I know I'm not the only one who participates in Debian (and other)
mailing lists as non-email forums.

   
But I believe that this is also something that can be resolved using 
technical means. I think the current policy is unnecessarily complex if 
followed, and in practice is not followed at all, leading to sub-optimal 
behavior.


Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

2011-03-13 Thread Josselin Mouette

Le samedi 12 mars 2011 à 10:50 +0100, Carsten Hey a écrit : 
 I set Mail-Followup-To: on every mail I send to *@lists.debian.org.
 Most DDs just ignore it (though there are some exceptions) and this
 renders using Mail-Followup-To: to get a copy to be rather useless.

Maybe this is because Mail-Followup-To is not part of any standard of
any kind, making it unimplemented in a large number of MUAs.

Add to this the fact that it is overly complex to implement in a sane
and intuitive way; unless you know what it really means (which is
different for each MUA on the receiving end), users just wouldn’t know
what to put in it.

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'  “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
  `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.”  -- Jörg Schilling



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

2011-03-13 Thread Andrei Popescu

On Du, 13 mar 11, 10:44:07, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
 On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote:
 If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the
 extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration?

 Any suggestions on how to do it?

By setting 'Reply-To:' appropriately, this is what it's for.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Process to adopt moribund packages?

2011-03-13 Thread Adrian von Bidder

On Saturday 12 March 2011 14.50:53 Neil Williams wrote:
 roy hills royhi...@hotmail.com wrote:
  I know the current package maintainer can file an RFA, or orphan the
  package, but is there a process for a new maintainer to take the
  package over if the current maintainer doesn't update it but doesn't
  request adoption?
 
 Ask someone on debian...@lists.debian.org about the specific package.

Contacting the current maintainer should IMO always be the (obvious) first 
step - if you feel the package is neglected, ask if he would mind if you'd 
take over.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
StevenK You're rewriting parts of Quake in *Python*?
knghtbrd MUAHAHAHA


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#617999: Please include link to general info in each lists page

2011-03-13 Thread Andrei Popescu

Package: lists.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

On Sb, 12 mar 11, 12:57:29, Carsten Hey wrote:
 * Carsten Hey [2011-03-12 10:50 +0100]:
  There are examples where we lost potential future maintainers because
  they never received a reply to an RFS.  These replies were sent to the
  list, but they were not sent to those requesting sponsorship.
 
 To clarify this: the problem was not that Mail-Followup-To: has been
 ignored, but the partly insane code of conduct.  How should new people
 know that they don't get a copy of replies to their messages unless they
 explicitly request one?

Dear listmasters,

From my experience lurking on Debian lists it is quite common to point 
people to a particular list by the list info URL[1]. Unfortunately, 
while that page mentions that posting is open (with the few notable 
exceptions) it has no hint on how one can participate without 
subscribing and there's also no direct path to such info or the CoC.

May I suggest including a link to the general information about Debian 
mailing lists[2], which nicely includes de CoC, with suggestions to ask 
for CCs if not subscribed, the Disclaimer, and other useful info.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/
[2] http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/

Thanks for reading,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

IRC会議延期の動議

2011-03-13 Thread Yasuhiro Araki

お疲れ様です。荒木です。

もうしわけないのですが、異様に多方面でやることがあるので今日の会議は他に司会できる方がいらっしゃらなければ
延期とさせてください。

皆様の無事を祈っています。

-- 
ARAKI Yasuhiro


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinvgvqdqvfck8jvoa70wsrcqvhug2gfjhuzh...@mail.gmail.com

Mirror problems?

2011-03-13 Thread Svante Signell

Hi,

when apt-updating from ftp.se.debian.org i get the following Hash Sum
mismatch failures:
(it does not happen when using ftp.us.debian.org in sources.list)

W: Failed to fetch
bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.se.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources
  Hash Sum mismatch

W: Failed to fetch
bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.se.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-i386_Packages
  Hash Sum mismatch

E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old
ones used instead.

Name  SizeLast Modified
Packages.bz2  6851 KB 12/03/11 14:04:00
Packages.diff 12/03/11 14:15:00
Packages.gz   8981 KB 12/03/11 14:04:00
Release   1 KB12/03/11 15:52:00


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1300019541.3792.6.ca...@hp.my.own.domain

Re: Mirror problems?

2011-03-13 Thread Alessandro Ghedini

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:32:21PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
 when apt-updating from ftp.se.debian.org i get the following Hash Sum
 mismatch failures:
 (it does not happen when using ftp.us.debian.org in sources.list)
 
 W: Failed to fetch
 bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.se.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources
   Hash Sum mismatch
 
 W: Failed to fetch
 bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.se.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-i386_Packages
   Hash Sum mismatch
 
 E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old
 ones used instead.

I had the same problem yesterday afternoon with ftp.it.debian.org for a 
couple of hours, but it works fine now.

Cheers

-- 
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;inidehG ordnasselA;eg;say~~reverse'


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110313130605.ga2...@pc-ale.rete

Re: postfix

2011-03-13 Thread Michael Tokarev

13.03.2011 16:09, Павел пишет:
 Добрый день!
 Скажите пожалуйстаУ меня есть сайт, стоит на дебиан 6. Есть ли
 пакеты которые поддерживают нашу зону .рф Я так понял что postfix не
 поддерживает. Может есть или подскажите как лучше быть? или мне надо
 перейти на .ru

.рф = .xn--p1ai .  Это называется punycode.  См. например
http://www.charset.org/punycode.php .

P.S. Этот список рассылки не предназначен для таких вопросов. Больше
вероятности получить ответ в каком-то из списков для пользователей
Debian, а не для разработчиков.

/mjt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7cc921.5050...@msgid.tls.msk.ru

Re: Mirror problems?

2011-03-13 Thread David Kalnischkies

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 13:32, Svante Signell svante.sign...@telia.com wrote:
 when apt-updating from ftp.se.debian.org i get the following Hash Sum
 mismatch failures:
 (it does not happen when using ftp.us.debian.org in sources.list)

APT since version 0.8.11 uses the clearsigned InRelease files instead of
Release and its detached Release.gpg if possible.
The file was announced by the ftpmasters on Nov 15, 2009 -
I really thought it would be save to use it more than a year later…

Much to learn, you still have. says my master now and laughs.


Unfortunately many mirrors doesn't use the newest version of ftpsync [0]
and therefore their two stage update of the mirror is flawed:
The InRelease file is updated already in the first stage while all the
other indexes are updated in the second stage.

As the first stage can have an enormous size [1] there can be quiet a bit
of time until the mirror sync is finished in which the hashsums doesn't
match (new [In]Release file hashsum record vs. old Packages file).


So all in all the problem is temporary. You just have to wait for the mirror
update to be finished or simple switch to a not-yet/finished updating mirror
if you are really impatient - as long as the mirror hasn't switch to the
usage of the newest ftpsync tool of course…

btw: The documentation on [0] doesn't include the InRelease file yet.
Any pointers where to complain about that? d-mirror, d-www, d-…?


Best regards

The hashsum mismatcher previously (not) known as
David Kalnischkies

[0] http://www.debian.org/mirror/ftpmirror#how
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/size-quarter.png


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTi=Wp8ivrNbu=era7a-rji8ph5gnwtdjzphk9...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#618024: ITP: libmethod-signatures-simple-perl -- module for basic method declarations with signatures

2011-03-13 Thread Jonathan Yu

Package: wnpp
Owner: Jonathan Yu jaw...@cpan.org
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org

* Package name: libmethod-signatures-simple-perl
  Version : 0.06
  Upstream Author : Rhesa Rozendaal rh...@cpan.org
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Method-Signatures-Simple/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : module for basic method declarations with signatures

Method::Signatures::Simple is a Perl module that enables developers to make
basic method declarations, optionally with a signature as well. It provides
a
small amount of syntactic sugar and is intended to be a stepping stone to
the
more feature-complete Method::Signatures (see libmethod-signatures-perl) and
MooseX::Method::Signatures (see libmoosex-method-signatures-perl) modules.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 04:39:45PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
13.03.2011 16:09, Павел пишет:
Добрый день!
Скажите пожалуйстаУ меня есть сайт, стоит на дебиан 6. Есть ли
пакеты которые поддерживают нашу зону .рф Я так понял что postfix не
поддерживает. Может есть или подскажите как лучше быть? или мне надо
перейти на .ru

.рф = .xn--p1ai . Это называется punycode. См. например
http://www.charset.org/punycode.php .

P.S. Этот список рассылки не предназначен для таких вопросов. Больше
вероятности получить ответ в каком-то из списков для пользователей
Debian, а не для разработчиков.

Кроме того, этот список рассылки -- англоязычный.

Павел, задайте Ваш вопрос на
http://lists.debian.org/debian-russian/

Также есть менее формальные русскоязычные ресурсы:
http://community.livejournal.com/ru_debian/
IRC-канал #debian-russian на irc.debian.org
и джаббер-комната deb...@conference.jabber.ru

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110313145321.GX2744@localhost.localdomain

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 119 matches

Mail list logo