I think that mailing lists work best if they are either very specific or catch-all.
Development@ is our catch-all. Mobile-development is also a catch-many and mobile is becoming increasingly blurry. Android-port is very specific. Topics regarding QT on mobile devices go well into development, such as how do we address the new life-cycle model of processes in operating systems like iOS, Android or Windows 8.Topics specific to android api level 9, that other bug in bionic or why surfaceflinger sometimes triple-buffers belong into a specific mailing list. It is the responsibility of us as contributors to maintain a discipline in picking the right lists for emails and to maintain a productive signal/noise ratio. Simon Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Paul Olav Tvete <paul.tv...@digia.com<mailto:paul.tv...@digia.com>> wrote: I'll try once more: We have identified the need for a dedicated channel of communication for a new project with a rather tight deadline. We would like that channel to be publicly visible so that that others can follow what we do. To be honest I am reluctant to this mentality of not caring about others like me who do not wish to subscribe to many mailing lists. Do I care about mobile platforms? Yes. Do I wish to maintain many bubbles separately? No. I do not even try to figure out why you would need to read all the emails on the development@ mailing list, and not just the Android subjects, especially if it is expected in a short time frame. I would even find that suboptimal, but that is why I wrote the 4) alternative which is a compromissum for both parties... What is wrong about that? Do you really *have* to be totally separate from the rest which will end up even in a closed list? Laszlo
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
