On 01/06/2016 10:43 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Richard Brown wrote:
On 6 January 2016 at 16:31, Per Jessen
wrote: Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Besides, it doesn't take much effort to add a 'CC:' in the HEADER to also send a copy of a message to 'opensuse' list.
True: https://github.com/openSUSE/osc-plugin-factory/blob/master/factor y-package-news/announcer.py is the code of the announcer... care to create a pull request for the right things?
Where is this being called from? (or how do I find out where it is called from?) The To: address(es) appears to be specified by the caller, not hardcoded in the script. According to the README, the scripts are deployed on openqa.opensuse.org, I guess that's where the changes are needed?
Good question, and I don't know the answer,
I found it -
https://github.com/openSUSE/osc-plugin-factory/blob/master/factory-package-n...
If the TW announcer is changed to mail additional addresses, I think it should mail the snapshot announcements to opensuse-updates@opensuse.org and not opensuse@opensuse.org
We don't mail the user support list every time we release updates to our other distributions, and I don't think regular TW updates should be of any particular interest to the readers of opensuse@ like they are to the readers of opensuse-factory@
Agreed. I am not certain if we even send an announcement mail to opensuse@ for major releases. Just because we release new packages more frequently for TW than for openSUSE_X or openSUSE Leap X shouldn't really change the behavior w.r.t. message sending. I think opensuse-updates@ is the place for those messages, as well as -factory.
Perhaps it depends on the best/primary place for support for TW users - do they address their questions to opensuse@ or opensuse-factory@ ?
Well that I think is really somewhat of a predicament. The primary purpose of -factory is to discuss topics that are related to the development of TW thus user support message do not really fall into that realm. At the same time the opensuse@ list is not really targeted at users of TW but more toward openSUSE_X and openSUSE Leap users. I'd say both arrangement are more of a historical artifact as when the lists were established TW did not exist and non developers were not encouraged to use Factory or Factory-Tested. Given the development of TW as a contender for those that are interested in rolling releases but are not developers it is probably worth to think about the definition and be more explicit where we expect ML traffic for those users to go. My initial response would be that for those users that use TW and are not developers the traffic should go to opensuse@. That risks a delay in developers becoming aware of an issue, but things that are real issues should end up in bugzilla anyway rather than be discussed on the list. This approach, I think, would require us to expand the definition of opensuse@ a bit from it's current description Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Public Cloud Architect LINUX rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo