I think I'm the only one on the list who probably would have objected
but I'm on both now so whatever :-)
Richard
On 29 March 2013 07:32, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:39 PM, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> That's a great way to have a bunch of people complaining that they
> never subscribed to packaging-sig, not to mention the part where it
> breaks everyone's mail filters.
>
> I really don't see any gains for renaming the list. It's not like we
> can go and scrub the entire internet of references to distutils-sig.
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
