[rhelv6-list] [rhelv6-beta-list] RHEL7 mailing list

[solarflow99]

I think a separate list for EL7 may not really be necessary, but I sure
hope mailing lists will continue, I'd really hate to see that go.

When I look at forums, there's a lot of activity in Fedora, I guess the
younger generation prefers not using email as much?   :)
The ML's have always been more of a keeping in touch with things for me,
rather than a than a tool to search for bugs/solutions



On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:

> I do not speak for anyone but m myself, a 20 year Linux Professional
> involved with many projects.
>
> All I stated is that capture and reuse works very well via other avenues.
> Mailing lists get more limiting, and consistently revisit issues, at
> 10-25K+ users. Sun and Linux Managers mitigate this with a reply
> off-list/Summary on-list approach.
>
> Although I did find it humorous when at least two individuals stated they
> did not care for Bugzilla. Kinda made my point for me. ;)
>  On Apr 18, 2014 11:34 AM, "R P Herrold" <herrold at owlriver.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
>>
>> > Forgive me for not reading the entirety of last-year's discussion on
>> > the issue, but is it fair statement at this point that Red Hat, Inc.
>> > won't be hosting a new mailing list for RHEL7 specific discussion?
>> >
>> > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo
>>
>> The 'trailhead' for that discussion was over here:
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhelv6-beta-list/2013-December/thread.html
>>
>> and I came away with the conclusion that at Least Bryan J
>> Smith (for whom I have great respect in some matters) who is
>> at Red Hat) was strongly advocating for a migration to other
>> support venue
>>
>> Problem as I see it is that some such venue do ,and some do
>> not leave 'breadcrumbs' that others can follow and read, and
>> major search engines find hidden nuggets in.  The thread
>> petered out, and as you remark, no list for '7' (assuming for
>> the sake of argument that which will be its name) has appeared
>>
>> Also the Red Hat acquisition and rework of the formerly
>> independent CentOS communication venue seems substantially
>> complete.  A later post also cites dissappointment as to
>> information density
>>
>> No big deal.  I would rather light a candle than curse the
>> darkness.  This will be my only post here on this matter
>>
>> Please feel free to join the mailing list at:
>>         http://lists.clefos.org/mailman/listinfo/enterpriseseven-list
>> if you are interested in the approach of an independent
>> mailing list on the next major enterprise OS product (binary
>> and 'from sources' rebuilds) from our host.  I would hope to
>> run it with civility and to stay close on topic.  As need
>> admits, additional lists are of course possible, but by and
>> large, I hope that the RHEL and CentOS mailing lists venues
>> will suffice for the next major release
>>
>> - -- Russ herrold
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAlNRb/UACgkQMRh1QZtklkSW5QCfZtVVgn84xOtcpa2+gnScQere
>> MUkAn3f3sXo3pb+SOCWBjafYxNeJOeki
>> =/H4O
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rhelv6-beta-list mailing list
>> rhelv6-beta-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-beta-list
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhelv6-list mailing list
> rhelv6-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhelv6-list/attachments/20140420/4bcd38d8/attachment.htm>