Re: [leaf-devel] Bering v1.0-rc3 errata
[Sorry for the delayed reply -- these kind of delays in being able to catch up with leaf-devel and leaf-user are why I need to be able to depend on leaf-announce.] guitarlynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thus this is > > certainly something that should have been posted to leaf-announce, > > rather than crossposted to leaf-devel and leaf-user. Remember that > > there are people who only have time to follow leaf-announce. > > Dan, I believe that this statement is another thread that is being > discussed. If any discussion has been missed, they are available > through the mailing-list archives. We really don't need multiple threads > to discuss the same underlying point. I wasn't discussing the point in general, just making the point why this particular post should have been made to leaf-announce. > In fact, I believe you have made your opinion incrediably clear on the > subject of leaf-announce subject scope. If I made my point so clearly, I shouldn't have to remind you that it was my feeling that people are failing to use leaf-announce because they forget about it, not because they have philosophical reasons not to, and that people occasionally need to be reminded to use it. Indeed this is proven by the fact that Jacques agreed with me that leaf-announce should be used for this sort of thing, and then a couple days later forgot to use it again. > It was also made clear that no changes would be made > to the present system w/o the consensus of the developers. I'm not asking for any changes to be made to the present system. As Mike Noyes eventually made clear in his posts in that thread, the present "charter" for leaf-announce is not in conflict with my opinion as to its appropriate usage. > I understand and appreciate your opinion, however needlessly > making the same statement repeatably isn't going to influence > my feelings on the subject. The post was mainly intended for Jacques, not for you. > My opinion is that a bug/security > alert should be made in the proper place (bug-tracker) and > an alert to users should be made where the most users will be > notified (leaf-user). Any code changes necessary to fixing the > bug open for discussion should be done in the proper place as > well (leaf-devel). leaf-announce should be used for the intended > purpose announcement of new images and packages. In this case, Jacques was posting instructions on fixing errata in the current release of Bering because 1.0-rc4 is not immediately forthcoming. The same people who would be interested in an announcement of rc4 and its bugfixes would be interested in how to manually fix them in rc3, if rc4 won't be released for a while. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: leaf-announce ML
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dan, > I've stated my position, and you've articulated yours. We agree the > announce list would be useful if it were utilized by our project > members. We disagree in some of the implementation details. However, > we've only had two comments by other people in this thread. Ah. I didn't see either of them as the authors removed me from the cc line (which wouldn't've been a problem when the thread was still on leaf-user, but I'm not subscribed to leaf-devel). > This is hardly a consensus. No, but then we didn't ask for one. If you really wanted to take a poll, you could, but I don't think there's enough difference of opinion to justify it. > Further conversation on this topic is welcome, Personally I think we've talked it to death. > My recommendation remains: > Announcements should be posted on our leaf-announce list, and/or > posted on our phpWebSite. Please don't cross post announcements to > leaf-user. Okay. Your purposeful exclusion of security advisories (now that we know "announcements", in your mind, doesn't include them) from your recommendation still strikes me as odd, since security-related mail is the most important type one can expect to get from the leaf-* lists, but whatever... > Our current list membership totals follow: > leaf-cvs-commits 21 members > leaf-hardware 72 members > leaf-announce124 members > leaf-devel 152 members > leaf-user550 members > > Our web site averages over 3,000 visitors a day. > https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=13751 Raw numbers don't tell the whole story, without knowing, for instance, how many subscribers to leaf-announce _aren't_ subscribed to any of the other lists (and don't visit the website regularly), but interesting nonetheless. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: leaf-announce ML
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dan, > My "semantics" are not weird. > > Google search results. > "Security Announcement" 25,600 > "Security Advisory" 117,000 I wouldn't dispute that "security advisory" is a more common phrase than "security announcement" (in fact I'm surprised it's only ~4X more common), but I don't see what that's supposed to prove. Bottom-line, I'm sure most people consider a "security advisory" / "security announcement" / whatever-you-want-to-call-it a type of announcement. > > > > Who said anything about forcing?? I just think that should be the > > > > official _policy_. > > > > > > Isn't that the same thing? > > > > No, because unless you're going to travel to the homes or workplaces of each > > potential leaf-announce poster, grab ahold of their hands, and make them > > type things against their will, you *can't* force anyone. > > Yes you can. It's called moderating a list. Moderation allows you to *stop* people from posting things that *aren't* inappropriate, but it doesn't give you the power to *force* people to post things that *are* appropriate, and the latter is what we're talking about. We're talking about people _not_ using leaf-announce when they should, not using it for inappropriate things. > > However, an official policy can be helpful in people's decision-making > > process as to what types of things should definitely be posted to > > leaf-announce, if they're going to be posted anywhere. > > A policy generated without consensus of our project members is of little > use. They need to find our announce list useful on it's own merits. Who said anything about doing something against the consensus of the project members? I'm really not proposing anything radical or controversial -- I'm just saying that at a minimum, when you're going to post information about a security hole or an updated package that fixes a security hole, you should make the announcement to leaf-announce. I can't imagine that's something people wouldn't be able to come to a consensus on. > > Nothing more than we've done by drawing attention to the list by discussing > > it over the past couple of days. Your post did have one semantic oddity > > that might have continued to dissuade people from using it, but we've now > > sorted that out. > > My "semantic oddity" statement "and/or" stands. > http://www.mail-archive.com/leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg05368.html The semantic oddity was considering a security advisory to not be a type of announcement. The "and/or" stands because, as you say, that sentence was implicitly excluding anything security-related when it talked about "announcements". > I'll post something to leaf-user when this thread concludes. Lord let that be soon... ;^> > > People forget. If they don't use a list regularly, they can forget it > > exists. It's not surprising that people don't remember your admonitions in > > the past to use leaf-announce. However, if you (or someone, for instance > > me, recently -- anyone who takes an interest) continues to remind people > > about it by asking that they re-post certain things on leaf-announce so that > > people only subscribed to that list will have the benefit of the > > information, then eventually the list will get to be used often enough that > > people _will_ be consciously aware of it, and the decision to post there > > will be natural. > > I don't believe nagging our project members is beneficial to our > project. Politely asking someone to re-post something on the appropriate list does not equate to "nagging" in my mind. And as I said, if leaf-announce use can just be jump-started, it's hopeful that once people are receiving pseudo-regular posts on it, they'll be consciously aware of the list and people won't need to be reminded to use it very often. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: leaf-announce ML
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "The person making the announcement needs to decide the target audience" > > _is_ more vague than "security advisories should be posted to > > leaf-announce". > > You keep returning to security advisories. I'm talking about > announcements. In my mind they are distinct and different things. As I made clear, I think in most people's minds, a security announcement is a type of announcement. If they aren't in yours, then you're using some weird semantics and people could get confused about the leaf-announce policy, which was my only point. > > Who said anything about forcing?? I just think that should be the official > > _policy_. > > Isn't that the same thing? No, because unless you're going to travel to the homes or workplaces of each potential leaf-announce poster, grab ahold of their hands, and make them type things against their will, you *can't* force anyone. However, an official policy can be helpful in people's decision-making process as to what types of things should definitely be posted to leaf-announce, if they're going to be posted anywhere. > > That would be more likely if the policy as to what kinds of things should be > > posted there (e.g. security advisories and new version announcements) were > > short, clear, and concise. > > The announce list was created shortly after our project was founded. Its > stated purpose hasn't changed. Our project members haven't used it. What > do you want me to do about it? Nothing more than we've done by drawing attention to the list by discussing it over the past couple of days. Your post did have one semantic oddity that might have continued to dissuade people from using it, but we've now sorted that out. > > It absolutely _is_ relevant to leaf-user. People need to know what types of > > things (e.g. security advisories) they can still expect to receive once > > their immediate problem is fixed and they've unsubscribed to leaf-user but > > stayed subscribed to leaf-announce. > > I believe this is a project administration topic, and it belongs on > leaf-devel. Well, at least the final result of the discussion deserves to be known by the leaf-user subscribers, but since I had the final post on that list before you redirected it off, and that post pointed out your semantic oddity, I won't insist we make another post on it. > In summary: we agree that the leaf-announce list is underutilized. I've > tried in the past to get our members to use it. I wasn't successful. > What suggestions do you have to remedy the situation? Just telling them > to use it isn't sufficient. At least it wasn't in the past. People forget. If they don't use a list regularly, they can forget it exists. It's not surprising that people don't remember your admonitions in the past to use leaf-announce. However, if you (or someone, for instance me, recently -- anyone who takes an interest) continues to remind people about it by asking that they re-post certain things on leaf-announce so that people only subscribed to that list will have the benefit of the information, then eventually the list will get to be used often enough that people _will_ be consciously aware of it, and the decision to post there will be natural. One thing you said is that in the past you re-posted things to leaf-announce _for_ people. That's not a good way to get people to post there, since they're more likely to just come to depend on you moving things over when appropriate. Better to ask people to re-post things themselves -- the conscious effort they'll have to expend posting it twice is more likely to lead to them to just post to the right list in the first place next time. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: leaf-announce ML
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That is not what I had in mind. The person making the announcement needs > > > to decide the target audience. Our mailing lists reach a different set > > > of users than our web site. > > > > I think you're making the criteria more vague and complicated than need be. > > Dan, > There is nothing vague about what I said above. "The person making the announcement needs to decide the target audience" _is_ more vague than "security advisories should be posted to leaf-announce". > > Bottom-line, stuff that's important for most or all LEAF users to hear, > > including, but not limited to, security advisories, should definitely be > > posted to leaf-announce. > > I will not force people to do this. Who said anything about forcing?? I just think that should be the official _policy_. > The announce list needs to be seen as useful on it's own merits. That would be more likely if the policy as to what kinds of things should be posted there (e.g. security advisories and new version announcements) were short, clear, and concise. > > Well, since you've redirected the thread off of leaf-user, it's partially a > > moot point. It wasn't clarification for me personally that I was driving > > for, but for others. But I suppose most of the people who are likely to > > have posts worthy of leaf-announce subscribe to leaf-devel. > > It was cross posted by you. No, it was Jacques' original post about the new version of the PPTP package that was crossposted to leaf-devel and leaf-user, and thus so was my reply to it asking whether such posts ought'nt to go to leaf-announce. > I pruned leaf-user as the topic wasn't relevant to that list. It absolutely _is_ relevant to leaf-user. People need to know what types of things (e.g. security advisories) they can still expect to receive once their immediate problem is fixed and they've unsubscribed to leaf-user but stayed subscribed to leaf-announce. > You seem to have a problem with the way I'm managing our mailing lists. > I admit there are many other people that are more qualified for the job, > but I'm the one that volunteered. > > Do you wish to take over our mailing list management job? It requires > approximately 15min to 1 1/2 hours a day. You'll need to understand mail > headers, and Mailman management. Please send your credentials if your > interested. Having a problem with your wording as to when things should be posted to leaf-announce does not equate to having "a problem with the way [you're] managing our mailing lists". I should think we'd be able to have a discussion without you pulling out the "if you think you can do a better job, go ahead" card. In any case, I unfortunately do not currently have the free time to volunteer for the effort, and I certainly don't see any major problems with the way you've been doing it to warrant someone else taking over. > What Jacques says for Bering bug reporting is correct. What I said, > indicates my preference. There are no mandates here. I'm not asking for mandates. Just for clear enuniciations of the _preferred_ way of doing things. For bug reporting, it's now clear from your and Jacques' emails that the tracker is the preferred way to do it. It just isn't clear in the official documentation, that's all. Lack of a clear, quickly-findable policy on bug reporting can dissuade people from reporting them (at least if they've found a workaround for their own case). -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] Re: leaf-announce ML
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Right. And security advisories are a subcategory of "announcements", are > > they not? That's "announcements" as in "leaf-announce". > > Dan, > Security advisories are not a subset of announcements. They are in most people's minds. That's why I wanted to clarify your statement. > They are > permitted on leaf-announce because we don't have a security list. Larger > projects usually have separate lists for security advisories and > announcements. Example: > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe > debian-announce > debian-security-announce Sure, if you go up to the level of a whole OS, there will often be separate announce and security mailing lists, but 99+% of open source projects have a single -announce list, which covers both general and security announcements. > > I suspect what you had in mind when you said "and/or" was that important > > stuff, including, but not limited to, security advisories, should go to > > leaf-announce, and less important stuff, like announcements of interesting > > potential LEAF hardware platforms, should be website posts. > > That is not what I had in mind. The person making the announcement needs > to decide the target audience. Our mailing lists reach a different set > of users than our web site. I think you're making the criteria more vague and complicated than need be. Bottom-line, stuff that's important for most or all LEAF users to hear, including, but not limited to, security advisories, should definitely be posted to leaf-announce. > > That just wasn't clear from your statement, > > I hope this message clarifies matters. Well, since you've redirected the thread off of leaf-user, it's partially a moot point. It wasn't clarification for me personally that I was driving for, but for others. But I suppose most of the people who are likely to have posts worthy of leaf-announce subscribe to leaf-devel. > BTW, regarding bugs: > Bugs are reported on leaf-user or in our SF project bug tracker. Then > corrected in cvs, and noted in a changlog of each release. You can > monitor all steps of this process if you want to. Okay. That conflicts with what Jacques said -- he said to use leaf-devel rather than leaf-user. But you both said to use the bug tracker, so as that's the most targeted path for bug reports, that's what I'll use in the future. You probably should update the Bering install and user's guides to say to use that, rather than saying to email you guys directly. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: [leaf-user] Bering: PPTP server updated (pptpd.lrp)
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Everyone, > > > Announcements should be posted on our leaf-announce list, and/or posted > > ^^ > > > on our phpWebSite. Please don't cross post announcements to leaf-user. > > > > Um, that "and/or" worries me a bit. I hope important things like security > > advisories, bugfix updates, and the like are always posted to > > leaf-announce. Not "_or_ posted on our phpWebSite". > > Dan, > I didn't say anything about posting "security advisories" on our > phpWebSite. I said "announcements" are "and/or". Right. And security advisories are a subcategory of "announcements", are they not? That's "announcements" as in "leaf-announce". I suspect what you had in mind when you said "and/or" was that important stuff, including, but not limited to, security advisories, should go to leaf-announce, and less important stuff, like announcements of interesting potential LEAF hardware platforms, should be website posts. That just wasn't clear from your statement, and I was hoping people wouldn't get the wrong idea, since we're trying to correct the underuse of leaf-announce for its intended purpose. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: Bering 1.0-rc3 bug fix: plog should tail after grep, not before
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 17:42, Dan Harkless wrote: > > Jacques Nilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The bug tracking feature is better but as you mentioned rarely used. > > > > Okay. Well, I'd be happy to help get it into more common usage by using it > > myself. One question, though. Because it's rarely-used, does that mean > > it's also rarely-checked by you guys, and a leaf-devel post is less likely > > to slip through the cracks? Or does the bug-tracking have some kind of > > feature to automatically email you guys when new bugs are reported? > > Dan, > All LEAF project SourceForge bug, patch, and feature request trackers > post to our leaf-devel list when they are opened. > > All LEAF project SourceForge support request tracker changes are posted > to our leaf-user list. Thanks for the clarification, Mike. That's probably worth documenting somewhere prominent so people won't be at a loss for which of the (six) different conduits to use for feedback. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: [leaf-user] Bering: PPTP server updated (pptpd.lrp)
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 22:48, Jacques Nilo wrote: > > Le Dimanche 28 Juillet 2002 01:55, Dan Harkless a écrit : > > > Jacques Nilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Isn't this the kind of thing that should be sent to the leaf-announce > > > mailing list? [...] > > I agree. There use to be a time where the traffic on leaf-user was not that > > big. But time have changed. [...] > Jacques, > The reason for the announce list has always been: News and important > changes in the project are announced here. (Announcements, Developer > news, Security advisories) > http://leaf-project.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=12&page_id=5 > > Everyone, > Announcements should be posted on our leaf-announce list, and/or posted ^^ > on our phpWebSite. Please don't cross post announcements to leaf-user. Um, that "and/or" worries me a bit. I hope important things like security advisories, bugfix updates, and the like are always posted to leaf-announce. Not "_or_ posted on our phpWebSite". A "pull" medium like a website is not appropriate as the only conduit for important announcements like that, as not everyone has time to continually check the website. That's what "push" media like announcement email lists are for. -- Dan Harkles [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: Bering 1.0-rc3 bug fix: plog should tail after grep, not before
Jacques Nilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK. That one will be addressed in rc4 as well . I am still investigating > this grsecurity pb Yeah, I can imagine that's a big job. grsecurity is sure an impressive array of security tweaks. As I said, though, my LEAF installations seem to work fine after putting sh-httpd back in the adm group, for what it's worth. > > Very useful information to have. Is the BusyBox manual available within > > Bering, by default or as an add-on .lrp? If not, where is it available for > > outside-Bering use? I don't think the installation or user's guides > > address this important issue (and they should). > The busybox manual is here: > http://www.busybox.net/downloads/BusyBox.html Thanks. As I say, that URL should be featured promimently in the documentation. > No lrp package planned for that one :-) We are talking about a floppy based > distro aren't we ? Pity. I'm sure a lot of people would find that very useful (especially during initial setup when one generally doesn't have a working network connection), since the commandline options available on the BusyBox programs aren't quite the same as what's available on the equivalent GNU or standard UNIX utilities (cf my confusion over 'tail' not supporting the usual - option), and they don't offer a --help option. BusyBox.txt is only 20K when compressed. That's certainly an amount I can find room for on my dual 1680K floppies. > Well it is still the one which was released in theJuly Woody stable release. > Will think more about your suggested change for rc4 Let me know if you decide against it. In that case I'll "escalate" my complaint to the Debian people. ;^> -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] Re: Bering 1.0-rc3 bug fix: plog should tail after grep, not before
10). > >From bb manual available options are: > Options: > > -c N[kbm] output the last N bytes > -n N[kbm] print last N lines instead of last 10 > -f output data as the file grows > -q never output headers giving file names > -s SEC wait SEC seconds between reads with -f > -v always output headers giving file names Very useful information to have. Is the BusyBox manual available within Bering, by default or as an add-on .lrp? If not, where is it available for outside-Bering use? I don't think the installation or user's guides address this important issue (and they should). > > Personally, I'd prefer it if plog just printed _all_ the pppd messages, > > leaving it to the user to pipe that output into more or tail as desired. > I 'll leave as it is in the distro. As a policy I try to stick as much as > possible to Debian standards. There only very few exception (ifup/down being > the most notable) for space consideration. Very understandable, but as I said, I think the Debian plog is faulty (and perhaps they've even fixed it in a recent update). Perhaps you could fix it "locally" in rc4 and report the bug to the Debian guys (if they haven't fixed it already) so that in the future LEAF's plog will be in sync with theirs, and both will have the bugfix. > You can easily adapt it to your taste if you want. I don't think it's a matter of taste. I think plog is objectively wrong as it stands. And I _have_ modified my copy. I'm trying to think beyond myself -- when plog printed no output, I assumed something was broken (like pppd not doing any logging at all). Other people wouldn't have to face this confusing issue if the pipeline were just switched around so that you always get _some_ output, if indeed pppd has logged anything. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkles.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] Re: [leaf-user] Bering: PPTP server updated (pptpd.lrp)
Jacques Nilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The pptpd.lrp package formerly available in the > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/bering/latest/packages/ > directory was buggy. > > It has been updated with the latest version (1.1.3) of the PoPToP server. See: > http://www.poptop.org/ > > Thanks to Stefan for spotting the bug and testing the new version ! Isn't this the kind of thing that should be sent to the leaf-announce mailing list? I'm currently subscribed to leaf-user while my LEAF installations settle, but it's high-traffic enough that I'm going to have to unsubscribe to it once things are burned-in. At that point I'll only be subscribed to leaf-announce, which, looking at its mail archive, doesn't appear to be used the way it's intended to be. -- Dan Harkless [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
