From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4201F3858413 for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 14:14:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4201F3858413 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pfeifer.com Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0100D33E55; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 10:14:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from naga.home (193-83-130-69.adsl.highway.telekom.at [193.83.130.69]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A30033E0E; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 10:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 16:14:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Jonathan Wakely cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH] wwwdocs: fedora-devel-list archives changes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <351f0667-e46c-b762-9308-d8b8e6087e8f@pfeifer.com> References: <56fee571-adb0-72e7-1ff6-d5e6309a4ce7@pfeifer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2022 14:14:49 -0000 On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> It appears redhat.com has lost Fedora mailing list archives, which are >> now at lists.fedoraproject.org using completely different tooling. >> >>Jakub, is there a better way than the patch below? > This looks right to me, I don't think there's a better way to link to > those archives. Thank you, Jonathan. I now pushed my patch. Gerald