Yeah, this was on my original email too.. :)
(being mandatory for anyone with cvs access..and the archive thing)
--Jani
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 02:16 PM 2/8/2002 +, James Cox wrote:
>>Someone suggested having php-bugs set up, and anyone with the relevant k
At 02:16 PM 2/8/2002 +, James Cox wrote:
>Someone suggested having php-bugs set up, and anyone with the relevant karma
>would automatically be on it. if it was closed subscribtion/unsubscription,
>then when someone gives karma, they also subscribe the person to that list.
>
>Perhaps that's a s
Someone suggested having php-bugs set up, and anyone with the relevant karma
would automatically be on it. if it was closed subscribtion/unsubscription,
then when someone gives karma, they also subscribe the person to that list.
Perhaps that's a solution, to seperate it. Yes, filters are good, we
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
>I believe that in the scenario where php-dev@ is sent bug reports as
>opposed to people having to subscribe separately to php-bugs@ the amount of
>people reading bug reports in the first case will be bigger than in the
>second. This is because I believe t
Exactly same for me. I should have started doing this a long time ago..
--Jani
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>> Do you filter these? :)
>> I didn't do that before, but now that I am doing it, it makes
>> following php-dev@ a LOT easier.
>
>I filter bug reports to a separate folde
At 03:15 PM 2/8/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>At 03:13 PM 2/8/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>At 03:04 PM 2/8/2002 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>
>>>Do you filter these? :)
>>>I didn't do that before, but now that I am doing it, it makes
>>>following php-dev@ a LOT easier.
>>
>>I do :) But I still
At 03:13 PM 2/8/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 03:04 PM 2/8/2002 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>>Do you filter these? :)
>>I didn't do that before, but now that I am doing it, it makes
>>following php-dev@ a LOT easier.
>
>I do :) But I still think that people subscribed to php-dev@ need to not
>o
> Do you filter these? :)
> I didn't do that before, but now that I am doing it, it makes
> following php-dev@ a LOT easier.
I filter bug reports to a separate folder as well. (cyrus + sieve rocks). I
noticed an interesting thing. Not only did reading php-dev become much
easier, but reading my vi
At 03:04 PM 2/8/2002 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>Do you filter these? :)
>I didn't do that before, but now that I am doing it, it makes
>following php-dev@ a LOT easier.
I do :) But I still think that people subscribed to php-dev@ need to not
only enjoy upsides but also the downsides of receiv
Do you filter these? :)
I didn't do that before, but now that I am doing it, it makes
following php-dev@ a LOT easier.
--Jani
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>-1 :) For the reasons mentioned every six months when this matter is raised.
>
>At 02:49 PM 2/8/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote
-1 :) For the reasons mentioned every six months when this matter is raised.
At 02:49 PM 2/8/2002 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>+1
>
>At 04:06 AM 2/8/2002, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to let you know that I'm doing exactly that.
>> Filtering that annoying noise to other folder. :)
+1
At 04:06 AM 2/8/2002, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Just wanted to let you know that I'm doing exactly that.
> Filtering that annoying noise to other folder. :)
> Which I unfortunately don't have time to read atm.
>
> And I actually have turned my coat on this issue and I'm
> in
Hallo,
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> And I actually have turned my coat on this issue and I'm
> in favor for separating the bug emails to own list.
>
> Two good reasons:
> - People who don't want to read them filter them out anyway
> - It makes php-dev easier to
13 matches
Mail list logo
