Re: wget-patches status?
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Mauro and I are subscribed to it. The list served its purpose while >> Wget was actively maintained. It's up to you whether to preserve it >> or replace it with a bug tracker patch submission process. > > Given the low incidence of patch submission, is there any reason why we > can't accept patch submissions on the main list? I think the original reasoning was that patches can be large and some people don't like receiving large attachments in the mail. Also, it would (in theory) have been easier for someone only interested in the patches, such as Linux distribution maintainers, to only follow the patches list. But with the current mail capacities and with the advent of public version control servers, that doesn't seem necessary. > Would it be useful to implement the same authentication process for > wget-patches; or was it intended to make things easier for > "drive-by" patchers? I think it would be perfectly fine to implement the same level of protection there. In fact, most free software mailing lists are much more annoying: they require you to *subscribe* (or register into a bug tracker) merely to send a bug report or a patch. Compared to that hassle, asking for a confirmation email is negligible.
Re: wget-patches status?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> What is the status of the wget-patches list: is it being actively >> used/monitored? Does it still serve its original purpose? > > Mauro and I are subscribed to it. The list served its purpose while > Wget was actively maintained. It's up to you whether to preserve it > or replace it with a bug tracker patch submission process. Given the low incidence of patch submission, is there any reason why we can't accept patch submissions on the main list? If someone gets prolific enough to cause an annoyance, we could always elevate them to svn access :) (assuming they have skill to match their powers of proliferation!). >> A brief glance at the archives seems to suggest that, for one reason >> or another, it may be suffering a larger spam problem than the main >> list; is this accurate? > > It's true. The main Wget list allows posting from non-subscribers, > but requires an authentication response; that has worked well to > prevent spam. The patches list doesn't have such a mechanism > installed, which results in more spam. (Of course, it still uses the > general antispam filter installed on the site, or the quantity of spam > would be unbearable.) Would it be useful to implement the same authentication process for wget-patches; or was it intended to make things easier for "drive-by" patchers? - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGjenL7M8hyUobTrERCJG7AJ9OaDfrQPy+O+QaEQ8zweax7nosSgCfewKG IA8tZxvYRApBhNU9iTtMMO0= =rJdc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: wget-patches status?
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is the status of the wget-patches list: is it being actively > used/monitored? Does it still serve its original purpose? Mauro and I are subscribed to it. The list served its purpose while Wget was actively maintained. It's up to you whether to preserve it or replace it with a bug tracker patch submission process. > A brief glance at the archives seems to suggest that, for one reason > or another, it may be suffering a larger spam problem than the main > list; is this accurate? It's true. The main Wget list allows posting from non-subscribers, but requires an authentication response; that has worked well to prevent spam. The patches list doesn't have such a mechanism installed, which results in more spam. (Of course, it still uses the general antispam filter installed on the site, or the quantity of spam would be unbearable.)
wget-patches status?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 What is the status of the wget-patches list: is it being actively used/monitored? Does it still serve its original purpose? A brief glance at the archives seems to suggest that, for one reason or another, it may be suffering a larger spam problem than the main list; is this accurate? - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGjY0T7M8hyUobTrERCFsqAJ4qqHiuTD1Uu6kdWTmN0Jcjn7bfNACfeFEu 9cidy5q0WF/U7JYp0LrWSJk= =dl0l -END PGP SIGNATURE-
