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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME 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 655D0BC0A for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:43:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from server2.thinkcrime.de (server2.thinkcrime.de [213.133.110.149]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2C1hEwd013447 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:43:15 +0100 Received: from hod-sarge-2005-10.lan.m-e-leypold.de (dslb-088-074-063-215.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.74.63.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server2.thinkcrime.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB875488176 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:43:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by hod-sarge-2005-10.lan.m-e-leypold.de (Postfix, from userid 1003) id D9DA6376C2; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:49:32 +0100 (CET) To: OCaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml-developer mailing-list: subscribe now! References: <78295CB6-B05B-4AF1-9AD5-AE7A8E7B42FA@epfl.ch> Organization: Leypold, Software-Dienstleistungen und -Beratung From: ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:49:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Martin Jambon's message of "Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45F4B032.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ens-lyon:01 skipping:01 quirks:01 markus:01 2007,:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 jambon:01 jambon:01 caml:02 archives:02 complain:04 distributed:05 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. > 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). And: Will the CAML weekly news editor also read you list? Regards -- Markus