On Mar 4, 2008, at 9:27 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > You see, as Jo Rhett points out (apparently without understanding), it > will have *no noticable effect* in the short run because *the proposed > change won't affect existing Mailman installations*, not even those > that upgrade to 2.1.10.
I understood. I'm trying to stem the flood of new installations that have this feature. > So the right thing to do is to get 2.1.10 out the door as is, and get > started on 2.2. No, it isn't. Based on current pace you're pushing the problem out for 2+ years. > Then you can even discuss shutting off the feature > in *existing* installations and requiring admins of *existing* > installations to reactivate the feature if they want it.[1] That > would very likely have noticeable effect *much sooner* than the change > proposed for 2.1.10, and would be much less disruptive. Huh? How exactly are you going to shut off the feature in an existing installation? Sorry, as stated your proposal sounds either naive or insane. No insult intended. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
