> On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Craig Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com> wrote: > > I think it’s time to switch over to secmail. > > The only thing we have not tested is new members. As long as you’re willing > to add the membership application functionality before the next members come > in, we can disable secretary workbench.
What I can do is to rough in the form for the member app. But the processing to update the members.txt file may be too much for my current skilz. Since the form, processing, and email bits are now more separated it might be easier. WDYT? Craig > > Thanks, > > Craig > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:15 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Craig Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >>> Any idea why this document does not show up in secretary workbench? >> >> Um, perhaps because it was deleted? >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60704b7e60e99f150d7f1ea33bdfb03e805e4d46296b242a61bf37ec@%3Cfoundation-commits.apache.org%3E >> >> Perhaps the real question should be: what functionality is missing >> from the new secmail tool that would enable you to switch over >> completely? >> >> One thing I have noticed is that when you have a document that you >> have received out of band you want to process you commit it to >> document/received and process it with the old workbench tool. The new >> process would be to email it to secretary@ and process it with the >> secmail tool. >> >> Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> Craig L Russell >>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation >>> c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo >>> > > Craig L Russell > Architect > craig.russ...@oracle.com > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > > Craig L Russell Architect craig.russ...@oracle.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
