-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 14, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > --On 13 March 2008 19:26:54 -0700 Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> - - Added a new 'sibling list' feature to exclude members of >> another list >> from receiving a post from this list if the other list is in the >> To: or >> Cc: of the post or to include members of the other list if that >> list is >> not in the To: or Cc: of the post (Patch ID 1347962). > > I don't understand this feature.... Hmm, Tokio Kikuchi asked about > the name > in 2005. I'm sorry that I didn't comment earlier. > > <https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1347962&group_id=103 > > > > > Sibling is a *completely* misleading term for this feature, because > sibling > relationships are necessarily symmetrical: if A is a sibling of B, > then B > must be a sibling of A. This feature is necessarily anti- > symmetrical, more > like "child" or "descendent". The term "sibling" will lead people to > misconfigure their lists. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_relation> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_relation> > > Question: is the relationship also transitive? IE, if C is a child > of B, > and B is a child of A, then will postings to A go to members of C? > If so, > then the relationship should be called "descendent". > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation> > > As far as inclusion is concerned, we then have a partially ordered > set of > mailing lists under this relationship. If the code handles the > (presumably > erroneous case) where a list is marked as a "sibling" of itself > properly > (ie, the listing should be ignored). > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_order>
I didn't see any follow up on this, but perhaps I missed it while I was at Pycon. Tokio can correct me, but I do not believe this feature is transitive. There is a strictly one-level inclusion or exclusion of regular delivery addresses. I see what you're saying about the term "sibling" lists being misleading. But what's a good term? I can't think of anything that encompasses both the inclusion and exclusion lists. "Related" is about as close as I could come, but that's pretty uninformative. It also might be too late to change for 2.1.10, especially if the u/i strings have already been translated. Ultimately, it's Mark's decision, and changing it would be predicated on finding a good alternative. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkfrDBoACgkQ2YZpQepbvXHm1QCbBE8LCvrIqcidwogr//L5zz9H bSYAn2vgW62BRAktJ+IEf4VVPY1vpdNA =/j/C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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
