On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:42:14 -0300, Barry Books <trs...@gmail.com> wrote:
I had not looked at that way but I think you are correct. You tried to
solve an Apache Foundation mailing list deficiency with Nabble but
Nabble has it's own set of problems.
Actually, we never tried anything with Nabble: it just started mirroring
Tapestry's mailing lists and posting to them without any action from the
Tapestry committers (as far as I know). Just a couple months ago we got
the permission to change Tapestry's mailing lists' configurations at
Nabble.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
<thiag...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:46:42 -0300, Barry Books <trs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that which is why I said the Apache policy (not the
Tapestry policy) is outdated. If the Apache Foundation had a gateway
anyone could post thru then perhaps most of the issues would be
resolved.
Again this is not a complaint but an observation and perhaps something
the Apache Foundation should consider. It may not be worth the effort
and if I'm the only one with this problem it's certainly not.
So our problem here seems to be Nabble itself. As Ulrich said, it has
some
problems that end up causing some serious trouble for everyone involved.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
