Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 03:28:18 -0600 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Subject: Re: Overlong mailing-list maintainer address in ports Message-ID: <20070114092818.GB1223@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420701131215i531e3c16m44198ee2985454f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <cb5206420612231103v69d1780dlefb3d4c62ca10baa@mail.gmail.com> <21940630@bsam.ru> <cb5206420612231234w1b01c0bbgc61f4e8f7827e455@mail.gmail.com> <20061223211725.GB24163@soaustin.net> <20061224120420.0542dfdb@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20061224113035.GA25941@soaustin.net> <cb5206420701131215i531e3c16m44198ee2985454f6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:15:33PM +0300, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > Right. The question is, should we stick to shorter > form for maintainership or allow both forms being > used on a case-by-case basis. We should pick one or the other; otherwise, there are duplicate posts to the mailing lists from the reminder-mail from GNATS, among other annoyances. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070114092818.GB1223>