>>>>> "JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JRM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
>> I agree this would be ideal, but I wouldn't do it for MM2.1.
JRM> Why not? Just because it would involve more changes than are
JRM> appropriate for a release in beta?
Yes, and because we currently have no database that's shared across
mailing lists. Issues I don't want to think about include concurrent
access to a shared database.
>> Certainly for MM3.0 when we have a federated user database,
>> this makes perfect sense.
JRM> I'm not familiar with a ``federated user database''.
One user database shared by all mailing lists. This will be the
primary focus of Mailman 3.0.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman-21/listinfo/mailman-developers
