Andreas Raab wrote:

>>Don't you think a daily summary would suffice to keep the wider 
>>community informed? Like "
>>
>>From: Harvesting News Bot
>>Subject: [HOT] New stuff on the harvesting front
>>
>>Please join the efforts to improve Squeak over at the harvest list!
>>Today's topics:
>>
>>[FIX] Make CoffeeMaker respect import restrictions (F.O'Reigner)
>>[ENH] CoffeeMaker now supports both sugar and cream (R. 
>>Sweety, 1 reply)
>>[BUG] CoffeeMaker default does not add water (A. McOffee, 3 replies)
> 
> 
> Hm ... this raises the issue of where to post these bugs, fixes, or
> enhancements initially. It seems to me that a large portion of discussions
> here on Squeak-dev is driven by such topics and I am not at all sure if we
> want to split things in a way that some discussions are going to happen on
> Squeak-dev and some on Squeak-bugs.
> 
> More generally, I think that the only "annoying posts" are those that either
> briefly review/test something (e.g., "[er][et] looks good"), and those which
> finalize an open issue ([closed], [approved], [update] etc). And those
> happen to be 90% of them.
> 
> So perhaps Squeak-bugs should be seen as a maintenance list where these
> things get posted and archived for people to review and check the status of
> things. In fact, it may not even have any public subscribers if BFAV gets
> the messages directly ;-)
> 
> I would then probably leave it up to the people posting the reviews and
> comments to decide whether this is a "maintenance" post (being sent to
> Squeak-bugs) or whether this is a "discussion" post requiring further
> investigation (and thus being sent to Squeak-dev, or both). With the default
> probably being a maintenance post (given the current usage patterns of
> BFAV).

Sounds reasonable. "Gradually reducing" the clutter, as Daniel puts it, 
is probably the best. Sqfixes will be happy with either. Just do not 
sent a message to both lists, I do not have duplicate filtering 
implemented yet.

-- Bert