>>>>> "PP" == Paul Prescod <paulp@ActiveState.com> writes:
PP> We've talked about having a mailing list for general
PP> PEP-related discussions. Two things make me think that
PP> revisiting this would be a good idea right now.
PP> First, the recent loosening up of the python-dev rules
PP> threatens the quality of discussion about bread and butter
PP> issues such as patch discussions and process issues.
I'm not worrying about that until it becomes a problem. :)
PP> Second, the flamewar on python-list basically drowned out the
PP> usual newbie questions and would give a person coming new to
PP> Python a very negative opinion about the language's future and
PP> the friendliness of the community. I would rather redirect as
PP> much as possible of that to a list that only interested
PP> participants would have to endure.
For me too, it'd be just another list to subscribe to and follow, so
I'm generally against a separate pep list too.
One thing I'll note: in Mailman 2.1 we will be able to define "topics"
and you will be able to filter on specific topics. E.g. if we defined
a pep topic, you could filter out all pep messages, receive only pep
messages, or do mail client filtering on the X-Topics: header. (This
only works for regular delivery, not digest delivery.)
just-dont-ask-when-MM2.1-will-be-ready-ly y'rs,
-Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4