On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>I agree on the basis of introspection (which is obviously a
>statistically biased sample), and pretty clearly the people who are
>currently posting "will I get feature X if I use Mailman 3" aren't
>thinking "I don't mind if I lose features
On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Terri Oda wrote:
>That said, I'm tentatively planning a personal postorious hackathon all day
>Saturday the 22nd. If anyone wants to join me, I'll be on #mailman on
>freenode!
This is a great idea, thanks for suggesting it Terri! I'll definitely try to
show up for
On 09/18/2012 06:26 AM, Terri Oda wrote:
> That said, I'm tentatively planning a personal postorious hackathon all
> day Saturday the 22nd. If anyone wants to join me, I'll be on #mailman
> on freenode!
Sorry that I cannot participate this weekend. I have another activity that will
keep me busy
On 09/18/2012 06:26 AM, Terri Oda wrote:
That said, I'm tentatively planning a personal postorious hackathon all
day Saturday the 22nd. If anyone wants to join me, I'll be on #mailman
on freenode!
Excellent idea! I don't know yet how much time I'll be able to free up
on Saturday, but I will
On 12-09-17 11:39 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Terri Oda writes:
> That said, I'm tentatively planning a personal postorious hackathon all
> day Saturday the 22nd. If anyone wants to join me, I'll be on #mailman
> on freenode!
I don't think I can join but maybe Could you be a bit
Terri Oda writes:
> That said, I'm tentatively planning a personal postorious hackathon all
> day Saturday the 22nd. If anyone wants to join me, I'll be on #mailman
> on freenode!
I don't think I can join but maybe Could you be a bit more
specific than "all day" (especially time zone)
On 12-09-17 1:12 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
I think if we release MM3 without 'a frontend' we will miss people's
expectation to get a feature complete MLM - which includes a frontend
in most peoples opinion I guess.
I do think that if we release them separately, we'll have to be very clear
Bob Puff@NLE writes:
> I don't want more servers (processes). I need secure,
> low-footprint, low cpu-utilization processes.
You're not going to get more processes unless you want them. The
processes currently planned are just called "runners" now, and will be
less coupled than currently.
Whe
I've been in lurk mode for quite some time, but I have to throw in my $0.02. As an admin of several
busy servers, and mailman lists that send out close to a million emails per week, I can say that I
don't have the time to deal with trying to create a new interface. I made my own cheat sheet of h
Patrick Ben Koetter writes:
> I think if we release MM3 without 'a frontend' we will miss
> people's expectation to get a feature complete MLM - which includes
> a frontend in most peoples opinion I guess.
I agree on the basis of introspection (which is obviously a
statistically biased sample)
* Barry Warsaw :
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 01:41 PM, Adam McGreggor wrote:
>
> >Part of the attraction in using Mailman 2, was that, for the majority
> >of tasks end-users want to do, they can do it via the web interface;
> >certainly an advantage over those "you have to do everything by email,
> >in
Hi,
On 09/17/2012 04:50 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Maybe now that the core is pretty close to what it will be like when released,
we can get more volunteers to help test Postorius, and perhaps contribute to
it? It would be cool if we could do a simultaneous release, but OTOH, the
architecture of M
On Sep 16, 2012, at 01:41 PM, Adam McGreggor wrote:
>Part of the attraction in using Mailman 2, was that, for the majority
>of tasks end-users want to do, they can do it via the web interface;
>certainly an advantage over those "you have to do everything by email,
>in the proscribed manner, to the
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:04:59PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> My biggest priority is to ensure that Mailman 3.0 is usable even without a web
> ui, and that major projects such as Postorius and HyperKitty can continue
> making good progress toward their own releases with 3.0.
Part of the attracti
On Sep 11, 2012, at 05:38 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>Unfortunately, I did not have time to look at porting the optional authorship
>settings from the branch I did on mailman 2.1 to 3.0. I suppose this is too
>late to make the 3.0 deadline, but from what I saw of the 3.0 code, this does
>not seem
that this change can be considered for 3.1?
https://code.launchpad.net/~mlm-author/mailman/2.1-author
Thanks.
- Original Message -
From: "Barry Warsaw"
To: mailman-developers@python.org
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:04:59 AM
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Getting to Mailman
On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Terri Oda wrote:
>As I've mentioned before, I'm interested in seeing dynamic sublists replace
>topics in Mailman 3.0. We've got a student working on the port, but honestly
>he's been dragging his heels and I'm starting to doubt it's going to be done
>by the end of Se
Oh, hey, this reminds me...
As I've mentioned before, I'm interested in seeing dynamic sublists
replace topics in Mailman 3.0. We've got a student working on the port,
but honestly he's been dragging his heels and I'm starting to doubt it's
going to be done by the end of September.
What do
Hi Mailman developers,
I really want to get Mailman 3.0 final out in the next month or so, absolutely
definitely by the end of 2012. Clearly, the core won't have everything that
everyone wants but I think it will have quite a bit, and be a useful release
for people to start using in production.
19 matches
Mail list logo
