On 28.11.2022 09:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022, 08:08 Jan Beulich via Gcc, <g...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> On 26.11.2022 20:04, Pali Rohár wrote: >>> On Monday 21 November 2022 08:24:36 Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> But then, with you replying to >>>> me specifically, perhaps you're wrongly assuming that I would be >>>> planning to look into addressing any or all of these? My earlier reply >>>> was merely to point out that _some_ work has already been done ... >>> >>> I added into CC also gcc, ld and mingw mailing list. If this is not >>> enough, could you tell me who to contact about those issues? >> >> That's probably enough, sure. I merely tried to set expectations right, >> since you did reply To: me (and lists were only on Cc: - it being the >> other way around would have demonstrated that you're not asking me >> specifically). >> > > That's just how most mailers do "Reply All", I don't think it out implies > anything.
I know mailers behave that way. But when replying you can adjust To: vs Cc:. That's what I'm doing all the time (or at least I'm trying to remember to do so), because it makes a difference to me whether mail is sent To: me vs I'm only being Cc:-ed. Otherwise - why do we have To: and Cc: as different categories? > Removing the Cc list and *only* replying to you would be different. Sure - that would have meant sending private mail, which is yet worse. Jan _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
