Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-log4j-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 65807 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2002 15:25:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Jan 2002 15:25:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 11520 invoked by uid 97); 9 Jan 2002 15:25:52 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-log4j-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 11485 invoked by uid 97); 9 Jan 2002 15:25:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 11474 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2002 15:25:51 -0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Folding log4j-cvs into log4j-dev X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:25:41 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Folding log4j-cvs into log4j-dev Thread-Index: AcGZH+gOOJrIvclZTgm0cC6ATZqEqgAAUCug From: "Jon Skeet" To: "Log4J Developers List" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > Jon Skeet wrote: > > Ant does (even though it's not listed), Avalon does -=20 > > others may do too. >=20 > Ant does NOT. Really? I've got a load of mails (including various today) which have a = "To" field of jakarta-ant-cvs@apache.org. On the other hand, those mails = come with an ant-dev unsubscribed message at the bottom :( I'm happy to = admit I've got less idea than you about this kind of thing, so an = explanation would be much appreciated, as I'm pretty confused atm :) > You are correct that Avalon does. At the=20 > moment, log4j and > avalon are the only subprojects with separate cvs mailing lists. > (Jakarta's site has only a cvs mailing list). >=20 > My feeling, for what it is worth: merging the -dev and -cvs=20 > mailing lists has two effects: (1) cvs commits get a larger audience,=20 > and (2) non-developers flee to the -user mailing list. I consider=20 > both effects positive. The latter I see as positive - the former I'm less sure about. My world = view at the moment (the one where Ant has a CVS list) is that when I = subscribed to ant-dev I was automatically subscribed to ant-cvs as well. = That seemed like a good idea to me, in that it maintained the = segregation very simply, gave me the granularity I might want in the = future, but exposed me to CVS by default. Perhaps what's actually happening with Ant is that ant-cvs is an alias = for ant-dev? If so, I'd at least like to ask that if something similar = could be set up for Log4j, that would be handy. Filtering by "To" field = is rather nicer than filtering by subject. I'm not nearly as bothered by this as I might seem, by the way - I just = tend to speak up when I'm asked for my opinion :) Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: