On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Fred Drake <f...@fdrake.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >>> Is there much point in keeping catalog-sig and distutils-sig separate? >> >> No. >> >> The last time this was brought up, there were objections, but I don't >> remember what they were. I'll let people who think there's a point >> worry about that. >> >>> Not sure if there's some official process for requesting it or not, but >>> I think we should merge the two lists and just make packaging-sig to >>> umbrella the entire packaging topics. >> >> There is the meta-sig, but the description is out-dated: >> >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/meta-sig >> >> and the last message in the archives is dated 2011, and sparked no >> discussion: >> >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/meta-sig/2011-June.txt >> >> +1 on merging the lists. > > Can we do it by just dropping catalog-sig and keeping distutils-sig? > I'm afraid we might lose some important distutils-sig population if > the process involves renaming the list, resubscribing, etc. I also > *really* don't want to invalidate archive links to the distutils-sig > archive. > > All in all, +1 on not having two lists, but I'm really worried about > "breaking" distutils-sig. We're still going to be talking about > "distribution utilities", after all.
Worst case I'm sure subscribers can be transferred and the existing archive kept intact. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig