On 14.01.2011, at 18:38, Michael Sweet wrote:
I can certainly make fltk.bugs/fltk-bugs read-only. It'll mean some changes in
the bug system too (emails to fltk-bugs would need to be posted to fltk.bugs
directly, for example) but nothing we can't handle.
Mike, we've got at least three positive
On 18.01.2011, at 19:14, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
On 14.01.2011, at 18:38, Michael Sweet wrote:
I can certainly make fltk.bugs/fltk-bugs read-only. It'll mean some changes
in
the bug system too (emails to fltk-bugs would need to be posted to fltk.bugs
directly, for example) but nothing
On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
On 14.01.2011, at 18:38, Michael Sweet wrote:
I can certainly make fltk.bugs/fltk-bugs read-only. It'll mean some changes
in
the bug system too (emails to fltk-bugs would need to be posted to fltk.bugs
directly, for example) but
I can certainly make fltk.bugs/fltk-bugs read-only. It'll mean some
changes in the bug system too (emails to fltk-bugs would need to be
posted to fltk.bugs directly, for example) but nothing we
can't handle.
+1 with a reject message for mails to fltk-bugs, as
suggested in your
Final opinions and votes, anybody? Should we (Mike ;-)) do it?
+1 from me (see above)
+1.
For emails, an autoreply.
For NNTP posts, I'm not sure, but you /might/ be able to configure
a custom message to be shown when someone attempts to post.
If not,
On 14.01.2011 18:38, Michael Sweet wrote:
On Jan 14, 2011, at 1:59 AM, MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
There seem to have been quite a few posts direct to fltk.bugs recently
by users unfamiliar with our ways... Some of these even seem to have
been of some merit (so it's good that
There seem to have been quite a few posts direct to fltk.bugs recently
by users unfamiliar with our ways... Some of these even seem to have
been of some merit (so it's good that Matt reads them!)
However, I still wonder why fltk-bugs is not just made read only so
that only the STR stuff goes
MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
There seem to have been quite a few posts direct to fltk.bugs recently
by users unfamiliar with our ways... Some of these even seem to have
been of some merit (so it's good that Matt reads them!)
However, I still wonder why fltk-bugs is not just made
On 14.01.2011, at 13:19, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
There seem to have been quite a few posts direct to fltk.bugs recently
by users unfamiliar with our ways... Some of these even seem to have
been of some merit (so it's good that Matt reads them!)
On 14.01.2011, at 16:18, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
On 14.01.2011 13:50, Matthias Melcher wrote:
We could also just open it to the public... . This has two advantages:
1. we never have to explain anymore why the user should not post there
2. we not only have a dedicated bugs, area, but
MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
There seem to have been quite a few posts direct to fltk.bugs recently
by users unfamiliar with our ways... Some of these even seem to have
been of some merit (so it's good that Matt reads them!)
However, I still wonder why fltk-bugs is not just made
On Jan 14, 2011, at 1:59 AM, MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
There seem to have been quite a few posts direct to fltk.bugs recently
by users unfamiliar with our ways... Some of these even seem to have
been of some merit (so it's good that Matt reads them!)
However, I still wonder
On Jan 14, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Greg Ercolano wrote:
...
If we change this, 'fltk-b...@fltk.org' needs to be redirected
(eg. to fltk.general), as I think that's possibly where a lot
of the fltk.bugs messages come from.
Recall we have 10 years of FLTK code that said at
13 matches
Mail list logo
