Fedora 8 Test Update: mock-0.8.8-1.fc8

[John Summerfield]

Andrew Farris wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> not to sound rude, but what you'd rather see is not really germane to
>> the discussion.  what *is* germane -- as i've already suggested -- is
>> that i originally joined this ML because i wanted to participate in
>> the discussion regarding fedora test *releases*.  OTOH, i have little
>> interest in staying on top of the constant stream of fedora test
>> *updates*, but i'm being force-fed that information anyway.  so what's
>> the problem with a new ML with that particular mandate?
>>
>>> to make sure those on the test discussion list were aware of the
>>> test updates that are being pushed out...
>> except that there are some of us who aren't interested in that
>> information.
> 
> So your point is that you feel the community really needs to have list setup
> such as below?
> fedora-test-updates-list
More-or-less daily package releases and consequential discussion.
> fedora-test-release-list

Fedora betas, maybe Rawhide as a whole as it would be increasingly 
appropriate as a new Fedora's birth approaches.

> fedora-devel-list
Hacking on packages for Fedora and any affiliates.

Sounds good to me.

> 
> all of which relate to testing and development issues for packages not yet
> released...
> 
> Just having the announcements split off to another list hardly suits your needs
> either given your feelings above and not wanting to know anything about updates
> and discussion of them.

Speaking of which, I wonder whether the newsletter (which I value) could 
have its own list too?



> 
> Email filtering?  All update announcements originate from

Until recently I was pulling (much to my astonishment) 3 Gbytes/month. 
That's through a modem.

Once it's arrived, it's too late.

> updates at fedoraproject.org, you could simply not see any of them with 2minutes of
> your time.  Granted if the *majority* of people on the list fall into your
> category its wasted bandwidth to have all the announcements going out to them
> all, but thats not necessarily the case.  I'm not saying your ideas are invalid,
> just playing devil's advocate about even *MORE* email lists... everyone's needs
> and interest in the information stream is going to be different.

I think more lists doesn't actually mean much in terms of administrative 
cost, and it falls on the few anyway whereas the burden of dealing with 
the relatively large volume falls on many.

> 
> Splintering discussions about updates away from next release testing will tend
> to also reduce cross-talk on related problems.  Just my 2c, thats a bad thing.

People involved in all two or three areas are likely to be on all two or 
three. If there's something relevant to two lists, they'll make the 
connexion and (maybe) cc the other. Yes, I hate it when someone takes a 
discussion from one list to another, but that's not exactly what I'm 
talking about here.

Those of us who don't want the daily updates don't read them. Rather 
than pay my ISP to receive them so I can discard them, I'd rather not 
receive them.

> 


-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Please do not reply off-list