On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 07:53 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 01:57:03AM -0600, Terri Oda wrote:
> > It's looking like we're going to have more student applicants than in
> > previous years, so I think it'd be great if we could get a few more
> > mentors to match.
> >
> > If
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:04:23PM -0700, David Jeske wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2012 3:07 PM, "Terri Oda" wrote:
> >> This agrees with my view of the situation as well. Which leads to the
> >> question, is the above approach interesting/viable for Mailman-team?
> >> (assuming the code does something awes
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:04:23PM -0700, David Jeske wrote:
> HOWEVER, I personally will not write GPL code. I might submit a tiny patch
> or bugfix, but I'm simply opposed to restrictions on how someone uses
> something that I'm trying to donate to the software community.
+1.
(as well as the bl
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I don't think you're going to find the will to make this sort of decision
> right at this instant because what we want the archiver ecosystem to look
> like for mailman3 is somewhat in the air. Do we really want an obviously
> less capable
> I think it would be a mistake to bundle any archiver with mailman3.
> Listing the available archiver options and their features and
> shortcomings would be a better way to go.
-1
I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes with
their distro, and there is a real ben
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Bob Puff wrote:
> I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes with
> their distro, and there is a real benefit to stuff working right "out of the
> box". This includes the Archiving functions.
>
> Its great to have options, and giving
On Apr 3, 2012 8:14 PM, "Bob Puff" wrote:
> > I think it would be a mistake to bundle any archiver with mailman3.
> > Listing the available archiver options and their features and
> > shortcomings would be a better way to go.
>
> -1
>
> I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM
On Apr 3, 2012 11:58 AM, "Toshio Kuratomi" wrote:
> > The question is "would you BUNDLE another archiver even if the licenses
> > don't match?"
> Where could your archiver fit into that sequence of impressions? I'm not
> entirely sure. I think that it probably couldn't be bundled into the same
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:41:42AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Bob Puff wrote:
>
> > I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes
> > with
> > their distro, and there is a real benefit to stuff working right "out of the
> > box". This in
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM, David Jeske wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2012 8:14 PM, "Bob Puff" wrote:
>> I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes with
>> their distro, and there is a real benefit to stuff working right "out of the
>> box". This includes the Archiving fu
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> From the talk about what it means to be a FSF project at the mailman sprint
> at pycon I don't think a non-FSF copyright assigned archiver would be
> bundled into mailman (Core).
AFAIK there are no "FSF projects", although the FSF does sup
On 12-04-03 11:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
So David's program can't be *part* of GNU Mailman without special
permission, which I doubt the GNU Project (ie, RMS, AFAIK) will grant
(and would require delicate negotations in extreme good humor on our
part, based on past experience trying to
This thread is slowing down my coding! :)(it's been really helpful
though all, thanks for the many perspectives!)
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Terri Oda wrote:
> It occurs to me that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that people who
> *package* mailman for different distributions may c
13 matches
Mail list logo
