English version
Accueil     Ŕ propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis ŕ jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml ŕ l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
ocaml-developer mailing-list: subscribe now!
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-03-12 (02:21)
From: Martin Jambon <martin.jambon@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml-developer mailing-list: subscribe now!
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de wrote:

> Martin Jambon <martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org> 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 Jambon