From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B51BC0A for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:21:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2C2LphE019263 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:21:51 +0100 Received: from out1.internal (unknown [10.202.2.149]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FA01F78CE; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by out1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:21:51 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: Oon9Fr4kOj38oRso24kNrv4IGjvNwtedvFGxPNo9vB7D 1173666111 Received: from adsl-75-11-191-94.dsl.sndg02.sbcglobal.net (adsl-75-11-191-94.dsl.sndg02.sbcglobal.net [75.11.191.94]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214F212D63; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:21:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Jambon X-X-Sender: martin@droopy To: ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de Cc: OCaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml-developer mailing-list: subscribe now! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <78295CB6-B05B-4AF1-9AD5-AE7A8E7B42FA@epfl.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45F4B93F.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ens-lyon:01 ens-lyon:01 skipping:01 quirks:01 2007,:98 2007,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 jambon:01 jambon:01 alan:02 caml:02 On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de wrote: > Martin Jambon writes: > >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de wrote: >> >>>> 2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff >>> >>> And that cannot be done by hand so that we have to split the community? >> >> Having to do things by hand is never really a good sign. > > Really? But how will the relevant mail be distributed to the > relevant lists? Aren't we deciding by hand to which list the mail goes > and isn't this prone to errors (i.e. "language geekiness" turning up > at your list and pedestrian mail turning up at caml-list)? And if the > splitting of mail by topics ("by hand") doesn't work well enough, > we'll all have to subscribe to two lists. How annoying. There are 1000 readers per message but only one author. To me it seems fair that the author of a message spends approximately 1000 times more effort than it takes to read and delete the message. >> Seriously, subscribing to a mailing-list is a one-time operation, >> while deleting messages is a daily thing. O(1) wins over O(n), that's >> all. > > I didn't complain about subscribing, but that there is another > list. Which will have (in my setup at least) to be sorted by the > incoming mail sorter, will have to have its own local folder/archive > and its own quirks concerning the mail headers (which are NEVER right > in lists). All that is work too. > > But seriously: If you list is a success, we will have two mailing list > archives (that have to be searched for solutions) and I don't expect > we'll be able to avoid subscribing to both lists, because the scopes > of each lists can hardly be distinguished. ONE always wins over TWO, > that's all. :-) > > And fragmentation hurts especially the newcomers who will often only > find and search one archive/list and then go away disapppointed (or > enraged). People search the whole web with their favorite search engine, don't they? > And: Will the CAML weekly news editor also read you list? I am not asking that from him, but yes he kindly proposed to do so. Thanks again Alan! Martin -- Martin Jambon http://martin.jambon.free.fr