On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:22:26PM +0000, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jeff Turner wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 04:53:01PM -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> >>
> >>> What about:
> >>>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> That would be a severe break with tradition in Jakarta and xml.apache.org
> >> projects. IMO, consistency within Apache (particularly the Java-speaking
> >> parts) is more important than saving a few characters in the list name.
> >
> > Totally agreed on the naming part.
>
> So? What names do you guys propose?
IMO, whatever Ant and Avalon pick. +1 for switching to whatever (user@
and dev@ sounds good) when they agree to switch too.
How about sending round a mail to gain consensus? There are some tricky
issues (users@ vs. user@, cvs@ vs. commits@).
>>>>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Rename mailing lists
Now that Cocoon, Ant and Avalon have migrated to top-level status, it is
hereby proposed that the mailing lists be renamed to reflect a common
pattern of top-level project lists, namely:
{dev,user,cvs,docs,announce,general}@<project>.apache.org
Issues to note:
1) The Jakarta standard is 'user'; the HTTPD and XML.apache.org standard
is 'users'. In deference to Jakarta's greater mindshare amongst Java
developers (all three projects are Java-based), the Jakarta standard
is suggested here.
2) All lists other than dev and user are optional.
3) Projects may choose to have CVS commits sent to the dev@ list, or have
a dedicated cvs@ list. Each project should decide if sending to
dev@ is beneficial ('forcing' developers to review commits) or harmful
(chasing away lurking devs who can't handle the volume). If
undecided, the HTTPd convention (a separate list) is suggested.
4) With the anticipated migration to Subversion, 'commits' might be
better than 'cvs'. However, 'cvs' is a firmly established convention,
and it seems better to migrate to 'commits' en-masse when actually
required, than buck the trend now.
To minimise user confusion and admin overhead, it would be best if all
three projects could agree to migrate at the same time (once consensus is
reached and Pier has time), and to the same naming convention (some
variant of the above).
<<<<
--Jeff
> Pier
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
