On Apr 08, 2012, at 06:58 AM, Aamir Khan wrote:
I believe that after integrating HyperKitty with mailman, there will be
archiver['hyperkitty'] which can be used to archive the messages. Am i
correct?
Yes, but that's mostly an implementation detail you don't need to worry
about. config.archivers
(Removing mailman-coders which should just be fore commit messages.)
On Apr 06, 2012, at 09:41 PM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
In order to provide migration from MM2 to MM3, we will need to reformat the
list configuration, membership rosters and the user preferences.
LP: #965532
What should we
On Apr 05, 2012, at 05:29 PM, Terri Oda wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone else has mentioned this, but
we may want to take advantage of the dynamic sublists code for this, since it
produces conversations or topics sublists and already has to generate and
maintain a code for
I would propose a slightly different scheme for converting messages to stable
URIs..
If we create our ID by concatenation of some hash and a part of the date, then
the mail server need remember only those messages that fall in the same
date-sensitive part of the namespace. It can forget about
On Apr 07, 2012, at 10:53 PM, David Jeske wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood. If you are going to have a record of the deletion
(i.e. you can keep a deleted message around in some form), this problem
becomes much easier. I thought this desire was to have stable urls and
threads when you rebuild and a
See what happens when you go on vacation? So many interesting issues to
untangle! I'll try to catch up but my responses will no doubt be somewhat
fractured.
First of all, thanks David for bringing ClearSilver to our attention and
offering it to the Mailman project. We can all agree that
On Apr 02, 2012, at 08:04 PM, David Jeske wrote:
The question i would you BUNDLE another archiver even if the licenses
don't match?
If you're donating the archiver to the GNU Mailman project, for us to
maintain, release, bundle, and develop, then I think that would be a very high
hurdle to
On Apr 03, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Distributed/pointed to by list.org along with mailman and postorius might be
negotiable though :-)
Absolutely. I'm committed to making it as easy as possible for an admin to
integrate third-party FLOSS archivers with mm3.
I don't think
On Apr 03, 2012, at 11:56 PM, David Jeske wrote:
If this GPL/S-BSD issue turns out to be a blocker, then I'll just make my
own site and maintain (my version) there because I want to release my code
S-BSD.
Also, there will be *zero* ill-will if you folks want to wrap it up in a
GPL license and
On Apr 03, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Bob Puff wrote:
I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes with
their distro, and there is a real benefit to stuff working right out of the
box. This includes the Archiving functions.
Distros are of course free to make their own
On Apr 03, 2012, at 09:16 PM, David Jeske wrote:
I'd personally like to see a better archiver rolled into an MM2 point
release, as well as upcoming MM3 development. (I understand pipermail URL
compat would be nice in that case).
I'd strongly oppose any change in default archiver for Mailman 2.1.
On Apr 05, 2012, at 05:18 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I'd like to see a default install provide list owners with at a minimum
a choice of public, private or no archives and the archives to be
searchable.
See also Jeff's first paragraph in comment #1 here:
On Apr 08, 2012, at 01:11 PM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
I would propose a slightly different scheme for converting messages to stable
URIs..
If we create our ID by concatenation of some hash and a part of the date,
then the mail server need remember only those messages that fall in the same
On 08-04-12 17:48 , Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 02, 2012, at 08:04 PM, David Jeske wrote:
The question i would you BUNDLE another archiver even if the licenses
don't match?
If you're donating the archiver to the GNU Mailman project, for us to
maintain, release, bundle, and develop, then I think
On 08-04-12 19:24 , Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 04/08/2012 04:14 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
Would it work for everyone if David licensed the archiver to Mailman
under the GPLv3+?
It won't work for David. See, e.g.,
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2012-April/021921.html
Well, that's
On 04/08/2012 04:14 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
Would it work for everyone if David licensed the archiver to Mailman
under the GPLv3+?
It won't work for David. See, e.g.,
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2012-April/021921.html
--
Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Blake Winton bwin...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 08-04-12 19:24 , Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 04/08/2012 04:14 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
Would it work for everyone if David licensed the archiver to Mailman
under the GPLv3+?
It won't work for David.
Well, that's not
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@list.org wrote:
On Apr 02, 2012, at 08:04 PM, David Jeske wrote:
Probably the only way I'd change my mind about that is if RMS personally told
us that we could still treat the non-copyleft donation the same way we treat
all the other code,
Are you expecting this direct python configuration import to actually be
an archiver, or simply to be a configuration shim to get data to an
archiver?
Python imports are not version-dependent (like C-shlibs are), so it seems
dubious to expect an external archiver to necessarily be compatible with
19 matches
Mail list logo
