[Squeakfoundation]Re: The Harvesting process and the BFAV

[Daniel Vainsencher]

Hi Ken. First of all, of course we'll defer to your judgement - the last
thing we want to do is create new problem, I'm just trying to make
things easier.

Here're a few things to consider -
1. The BFA has two primary clients - "mail (changeset) to list", and the
BFAV. We control the code for both, and neither is currently inclined to
send anything to both addresses. We can make sure both continue to send
to only one of them.
2. Two mailing lists vs one mailiing list and one address listened to
just by the server - seems to me the latter option has the same
limitations as the former in terms of duplication, but has the
disadvantage of not being accessible by means other than the BFA server.
Archives, Google... this is all good.
3. Message-id:
<1066324314.994.6.camel at 12-222-173-196.client.insightbb.com> allows
duplicate elimination, if it turns out to be needed to be pretty
trivial.

So it seems to me that having another list would not hurt, and might
help. So you just let us know. If you still prefer the solution you
mention, please let know, I'll adapt the BFAV patch I'd prepared to use
those addresses.

About the new header, we can adopt whatever header scheme you guys agree
on, as long as it doesn't stop us from dealing with historical messages
that don't have it.

Daniel

Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> wrote:
> I don't have time just at the moment to address all of this but I would
> like to request that we NOT start another mailing list.  I want to
> discourage this because once two mailing lists exist to which BFAV
> traffic can be sent then the BFAV server must subscribe to both lists.=20
> We will very quickly find people sending traffic to both lists and then
> it will become necessary to start checking the history of received
> messages to be sure that a new message is not a repeat.  I see no reason
> that posts that do not need to go to the mailing list can not be
> perfectly well archived within Bert's bug/fix archives and within the
> new BFAV server.  I haven't done the work to accept such messages
> directly into the BFAV yet but it's just a matter of a few minutes to do
> so.
> 
> While on this subject I would like to request that we adopt a more
> intention revealing method of indicating that a message is intended to
> be archived into the bug system than the List-Id: header.  Perhaps
> something like
> 
> X-Squeak-Archive-BugFix: Yes
> 
> Additional data, if needed, could be appended to this as desired.
> 
> Ken
> 
> --=-yQzINoO3J8+P7KVy85kb
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQA/jtFZ//qOUj3eKgMRAmD/AJ9u4f/dANc97QXt+U3GoziKpTtc3wCgjLAV
> Riy3k7isheCKSK15DDRsUtY=
> =JLsg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --=-yQzINoO3J8+P7KVy85kb--
> 
> 
> --Boundary_(ID_lsbqCGy56fnLNSPuYxCjOw)
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> 
> --Boundary_(ID_lsbqCGy56fnLNSPuYxCjOw)--