Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:00:05PM +0200, Warly wrote:
IMNSHO:
- I have no problem with the current cooker.
Yes and you get paid to read the list. I don't. If you wanna pay me to
read the list then I'll suddenly be okay with spending a lot of time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Warly wrote:
It is still quite hard to find a way that pleased enough contributors
to be efficient.
Maybe could we first try with cooker-install for the install,
cooker-mandrake-tools for the configuration tools,
cooker-graphic-interface for
Why is there still an argument going on? The people against the split are
saying, I don't see the need, but I guess we could try out a few sublists,
if for nothing else then to keep you idiots quiet. The people who want the
split are saying, You reactionary running-dog bastards, I demand that
On Fri 18 Jul 2003 09:53, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below:
I think the biggest demand for a split list was coming from those
interested in the server aspects.
It could also involve those NOT interested in the server aspects, as some of
the biggest threads are server related. I am such
Hi Mate,
if you have a server that holds the mails - just make sure you have the
possibility to connect it through IMAP. Imap will only get you the headers -
as long as you don't want to read a Mail. The way I do it - even if I have a
Cable-Connection etc. - but it's way faster.
On Wednesday
Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Warly, you have mentioned this before, is it worthwhile doing?
IMNSHO:
- I have no problem with the current cooker.
- 500 mails a day is about 2 MB, which represents 5 min of a 56k modem
connection. However the bandwith argument is still valid to my
On 2003.07.15 08:00, Warly wrote:
IMNSHO:
- I have no problem with the current cooker.
Word up.
Warly, you are (as usual), the cool-headed voice of reason.
Austin
--
Austin Acton Hon.B.Sc.
Synthetic Organic Chemist, Teaching Assistant
Department of
Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2003.07.15 08:00, Warly wrote:
IMNSHO:
- I have no problem with the current cooker.
Word up.
Warly, you are (as usual), the cool-headed voice of reason.
Should we initiate a vote?
--
dams
lists?
the cooker community can 'vote' it elsewhere by followups editing the
subject line (remember that the References: header keeps messages
threaded if your email software is suitably intelligent ;) so most
readers would create a thread that looked like
Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists
an empty followup with the
target group name as a [topic] in the subject line, for example, if we
see a message
Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists?
the cooker community can 'vote' it elsewhere by followups editing the
subject line (remember that the References: header keeps messages
threaded
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 17:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2003.07.15 08:00, Warly wrote:
IMNSHO:
- I have no problem with the current cooker.
Word up.
Warly, you are (as usual), the cool-headed voice of reason.
Should we initiate a vote?
I vote yes
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 17:46, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
w == warly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
w - I agree that some people have various interests and are not
w interested in such or such topics.
They can always filter on the [topic] strings to downgrade messages
they don't want
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:00:05PM +0200, Warly wrote:
IMNSHO:
- I have no problem with the current cooker.
Yes and you get paid to read the list. I don't. If you wanna pay me to
read the list then I'll suddenly be okay with spending a lot of time
reading stuff that doesn't matter much. I
On Mon 07 Jul 2003 05:40, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below:
This has been brought up before, but I wonder if it would be useful to
have focused cooker lists.
...
So, would it be worthwhile to have lists dedicated to:
-server software (apache/samba/ldap/postfix etc)
-KDE
-GNOME
-Other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
On Mon 07 Jul 2003 05:40, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below:
Probably add another for non-kernel non-admin-tool core, including
networking
and connectivity, installation, etc.
Well, my intention was that this kind of generic
Frank Griffin wrote:
Umm, Ok, here's another obvious newbie question. Is there a link that
describes the voting process for Cooker (Bugzilla) bugs. I've just
been submitting bug reports in the (probably naive) belief that they
would be routed to the category owners and acted upon according
Frederic Crozat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, there are a lot of bugs and all can't be closed because either:
-infos are insufficent for reproducing the bug (I doesn't work..)
-hardware related problem, impossible to reproduce here
-complex application bug which can only be resolved by apps
On Wed Jul 09 2:48 -0700, Duncan wrote:
What of cross-posting issues? What if something deals with a KDE network
config/admin tool? It could then be posted to KDE, admin tools, and my
suggested core group. If somebody was on all three, they'd get three copies,
which would be a bit
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:00:51 +0200, Helge Hielscher wrote:
Frank Griffin wrote:
Umm, Ok, here's another obvious newbie question. Is there a link that
describes the voting process for Cooker (Bugzilla) bugs. I've just
been submitting bug reports in the (probably naive) belief that they
Helge Hielscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I looks like there is no scheme of who is looking after
bugreports. There are many bugs which were reported during the
9.1 beta which are still uncovered. Why should I post a bug if I
know no one will be looking at it?
There are two categories of
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:36:33AM -0400, Levi Ramsey wrote:
That's what procmail is for...
More specifically:
:0 Wh: $PMDIR/.msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 $PMDIR/.msgid.cache
--
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ben.reser.org
What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I
Frederic Crozat wrote:
Yes, there are a lot of bugs and all can't be closed because either:
-infos are insufficent for reproducing the bug (I doesn't work..)
Then at least the bug status should be changed to needinfo.
At the moment there are 955 bugs with the status unconfirmed 48 of them
were
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
There are two categories of bugs:
1- bugs on install, or hardware support. We are burried under
such bugs, with the following problems:
- many duplicates
- many poorly qualified bugs (and reporting accurate
hardware information is non trivial)
-
Mdk maintainer not answering on this mailing-list is another
problem, which won't be solved by splitting the ml, for sure.
Well, I was under the impression that some used the excuse not
having time to read/reply to 100rds of mails a day.
Dumb excuse IF the poster CC's the maintainer
Michael Scherer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, this is annoying to add one or two CC by hand.
As all manual and repetitive task, if it can be automated, it should.
Agreed.. of course. People who use scoring don't see that
problem. That's just a matter of willingness..
--
Guillaume
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 02:07 am, Michael Scherer wrote:
Mdk maintainer not answering on this mailing-list is another
problem, which won't be solved by splitting the ml, for sure.
Well, I was under the impression that some used the excuse not
having time to read/reply to 100rds of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Meyer, MD wrote:
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 02:07 am, Michael Scherer wrote:
Well, is ONE package maintainer everyone ?
OK, let's see. If I want to discuss ldap authentication for apache
(making it work better out the box), I would want to cc
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:40:10PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like
to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised
(regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction) I
don't really feel
Frank Griffin wrote:
I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report.
Well, if it were a seperate list, you wouldn't have to question it.
Aren't people
supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ?
The bugzilla mails to the list are not mainly for people who would
otherwise post bugs,
Buchan Milne wrote:
Aren't people
supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ?
The bugzilla mails to the list are not mainly for people who would
otherwise post bugs, it is mainly for people who can help fix bugs. It
allows distributed bug resolution. Before the bugzilla list, bugzilla
traffic
Ben Reser wrote:
Back when Bugzilla was put in place I suggested that bugs only be sent
to the list for the first bug report (so people see the reports) and
then the rest would happen off the list. If you cared about a bug you
subscribed to it. If you didn't then you wouldn't see it after the
Buchan Milne wrote:
I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report.
Well, if it were a seperate list, you wouldn't have to question it.
I should have pointed out that if the Bugzilla stuff went to a separate
list, then my query about other ways to do this through Bugzilla would
On Tue Jul 08 17:26 -0400, Frank Griffin wrote:
I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Aren't people
supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? If they run into something,
searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you
remember some mail that
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 05:26:21PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote:
I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Aren't people
supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? If they run into something,
searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you
remember
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 04:34 pm, Ben Reser wrote:
receive can. Everyone is happy. Problem solved.
I think Ben has eloquently created a workable middle ground. I was on the
fence until I read his post, but I think that he makes some strong arguments
for seperating lists, and I would
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:35:59PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote:
Sorry if I'm being dense (I'm pretty new to the undocumented Cooker
social protocols and I'm not about to try searching the ML for
bugzilla), but if someone is interested in working on bugs in one or
several product areas,
Levi Ramsey wrote:
On Tue Jul 08 17:26 -0400, Frank Griffin wrote:
I agree, but I'd question even sending the first report. Aren't people
supposed to be searching Bugzilla first ? If they run into something,
searching Bugzilla seems a lot more straightforward than hoping that you
remember
Ben Reser wrote:
Also, one of the problems with Bugzilla is that certain categories (like
Installation) bypass sending mail to anybody at Mandrake *except* the
Cooker ML.
If you mean that bugs have to be voted on before they get seen by the
developers then that is good and useful.
Ben Reser wrote:
Of course, every time I try to run complex bugzilla searches, I get 500
Internal Server Errors
If that's the case then those problems should be filed as bug reports
against Bugzilla itself so Warly can fix them.
If we were making full use of Bugzilla there would be a
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:14:38PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote:
I didn't report them because I assumed they were Bugzilla bugs (and thus
outside of Mandrake's province). If Warly maintains Bugzilla, then I will.
He maintains Mandrake's installation of if which is most definately not
stanard...
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:09:30PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote:
Somehow I missed the description of bugs having to be voted upon to be
seen by developers. I've just been submitting them. Can you provide a
link that describes this practice ?
I'm not sure there is a specific link. And what
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:40:10 +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
This has been brought up before, but I wonder if it would be useful to
have focused cooker lists.
There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like
to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised
Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists, it
*would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and some
people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic) may be able to
participate in a more focused list.
It's just
On Monday 07 July 2003 08:40 am, Buchan Milne wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This has been brought up before, but I wonder if it would be useful to
have focused cooker lists.
There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like
to discuss with other
Buchan Milne wrote:
There are some topics I haven't brought up on cooker, that I would like
to discuss with other cookers, but since it is quite specialised
(regarding default ACLs in openldap, kerberos, samba in conjunction) I
don't really feel comfortable spamming the cookers who want to
On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists,
it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and
some people who aren't active on cooker (due to high traffic)
måndagen den 7 juli 2003 16.42 skrev Michael Scherer:
On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Buchan Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although a lot of people may end up subscribing to all the lists,
it *would* mean that we could have more focused discussions, and
some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Scherer wrote:
On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Even if we can categorise by looking at the subject, we lose time to
read the subject.
And some people lose time just by receiving the mail (those on tight
bandwidth
On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
It's just a matter of categorizing discussions. I happen to not
follow closely KDE discussions for example.
If people can't categorize (with the subject) in cooker ML, I
don't think they will be able to select the right mailing-list to
post to.
måndagen den 7 juli 2003 17.43 skrev Buchan Milne:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Scherer wrote:
On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Even if we can categorise by looking at the subject, we lose time to
read the subject.
And some people
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
It's just a matter of categorizing discussions. I happen to not
follow closely KDE discussions for example.
If people can't categorize (with the subject) in cooker ML, I
don't think they will be able to select the
Rather than split by product, I would suggest splitting out the Bugzilla
mails. By definition, anybody interested in changes to bugs ought to be
watching the bug (and therefore be mailed) anyway.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Frederic Crozat wrote:
The goal of this mailing list is to stabilize cooker, nothing else..
what about other goals? Like working together to fix problems?
Where is the list for that?
d.
On Monday 07 July 2003 08:43, Buchan Milne wrote:
Michael Scherer wrote:
On Monday 07 July 2003 14:46, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Even if we can categorise by looking at the subject, we lose time to
read the subject.
And some people lose time just by receiving the mail (those on tight
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frank Griffin wrote:
Rather than split by product, I would suggest splitting out the Bugzilla
mails. By definition, anybody interested in changes to bugs ought to be
watching the bug (and therefore be mailed) anyway.
The point of the bugzilla
On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
??? I think this is relevent for 0.1% of ppl out there.
ironicThat must be 10% of all linux users!/ironic
It is always good practice to make even small minorities happy, if it
does not make a majority unhappy, IMO.
Debating on the patch is a
On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 19:34, Michael Scherer wrote:
-some people do not have the bandwith to download 90% uninteresting
messages
??? I think this is relevent for 0.1% of ppl out there.
This is relevant for only 0,1% because people need some bandwidth to
follow cooker ml, and so,
On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 15:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Frederic Crozat wrote:
The goal of this mailing list is to stabilize cooker, nothing else..
what about other goals? Like working together to fix problems?
Where is the list for that?
Er, you stabilise Cooker by
Buchan Milne wrote:
Warly, you have mentioned this before, is it worthwhile doing?
Yes! - That would be great...
There is a lot on 'noise' on the cooker list currently. My
development effort is focused on the server side, and it would be so
much simpler to follow what is going on with
On Monday 07 July 2003 02:49 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7 Jul 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
??? I think this is relevent for 0.1% of ppl out there.
ironicThat must be 10% of all linux users!/ironic
It is always good practice to make even small minorities happy, if it
does not make
60 matches
Mail list logo
