Re: [dev] I don't get mailinglists.

From: Christoph Lohmann <20h_AT_r-36.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:27:27 +0200

Greetings.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:27:27 +0200 Ross Mohn <rpmohn_AT_waxandwane.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Markus Teich wrote:
> > Ross Mohn wrote:
> > > Yes, I'd like to send these just to hackers_AT_, where they belong
> >
> > Heyho Ross,
> >
> > I don't think hackers_AT_ was the right choice. It was a support question, neither
> > a patch nor a discussion about a proposed patch or even an actual bug report of
> > a bug in dvtm. Your problem (getting cwd of an arbitrary process) has also been
> > discussed on dev_AT_ in the past.
>
> That highlights my frustration with the new definitions for the mailing
> lists. I am a hacker/developer and really only ask a question when I
> need a little help hacking on the code. As you can see, my question led
> me to submit the patched solution in the same email thread. The changed
> definitions "keep the development out of the endless support threads on
> dev_AT_ and development more enjoyable." My question was a development
> question, not a support question, and therefore was more appropriately
> discussed on hackers_AT_. Why "support" is discussed on "dev[elopment]" and
> not on a new support_AT_ list is still beyond me, but I'll get over it as
> soon as Marc shows up on hackers_AT_. :-)

If in doubt send to dev_AT_.

For hackers_AT_ it's more like:
1.) I have a patch, please apply it.
2.) Discussion happens.

1.) Maintainer applies some patch.
2.) Commit is discussed.

For dev_AT_ it's rather theoretical:
1.) Have you considered this old writing in some C bible? How do you think
    about it?
2.) Long flameware starts and leads to subthreads.

1.) You have to implement this feature!
2.) Fuck off.
3.) You are so unfriendly.

I wanted more mailinglists, but Anselm didn’t like more. There is no support
at suckless, so there's no need for support_AT_.


Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann
Received on Wed Jul 15 2015 - 19:27:27 CEST