On Sat, 2020-03-28 at 18:46 +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: > > > As an ex IT guy, I've gone both directions depending on the project I was > > supporting and certainly see the pros and cons of going highly customized vs > > as > > generic as possible. In my opinion Chris & Frank are doing the right thing > > here > > and I would not support reverting or revisiting the decisions they made as > > part > > of this upgrade. Yes it means a slight bit of pain as everyone gets used to > > the > > new system, but it's the right long term direction. > > I think being software developers we are in this comfortable position > that we can actually make changes to software ourselves if we find > problems or usability issues. So if something is perceived wrong, then > how about proposing a patch instead to the relevant piece of software so > that the expected feature is present in a future version (that we can then > seamlessly upgrade to)? > > For example I found it useful on a couple of occasions to be able to > retrieve the original message verbatim from the archive, when the message > didn't reach my mailbox for one reason or another. That might be via a > web page, or better yet a list server command. If the new archiver is > missing this feature, then I think the way to move forward is to propose a > change to add it to the archiver, which would solve the actual problem on > one hand while keeping the life of our volunteer IT people easy enough on > the other. Just to be clear, something like the ability to download the original message verbatim is critical to the project. That's a capability we have to have and thus some pain to make that possible is reasonable.
But in general we should be moving, to standardized tools and standardized configurations when reasonably possible. I don't think switching back to qmail+ezmlm would be the right move though. jeff
