From: Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20000527025014.A10144@shell17.ba.best.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005261834080.620-100000@nunki.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 06:34:58PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> He contacted my directly, but as I'm not involved with the mailing lists
> at all, could any of you please have a look?
I doubt anyone was changing ezmlm at this level recently - I'm the
only one who has really delved into the gory details of ezmlm and
I know I haven't touched it in several months. Unless Jeff was
tweaking one of the gcc lists somehow recently, I can't offer any
explanation about why the digest function would behave differently
from how it normally behaves.
Sorry I can't provide any better analysis on this one,
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 02:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20000527025014.A10144@shell17.ba.best.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20000527025000.nfnNVFTE7wD7XX-MK1QoV8XU9hDeMkmmVE0bbAXm3HA@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005261834080.620-100000@nunki.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 06:34:58PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> He contacted my directly, but as I'm not involved with the mailing lists
> at all, could any of you please have a look?
I doubt anyone was changing ezmlm at this level recently - I'm the
only one who has really delved into the gory details of ezmlm and
I know I haven't touched it in several months. Unless Jeff was
tweaking one of the gcc lists somehow recently, I can't offer any
explanation about why the digest function would behave differently
from how it normally behaves.
Sorry I can't provide any better analysis on this one,
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-12-30 6:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-30 6:08 Gerald Pfeifer
2000-05-26 9:35 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda [this message]
2000-05-27 2:50 ` Jason Molenda
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jeffrey A Law
2000-05-28 11:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20000527025014.A10144@shell17.ba.best.com \
--to=jason-swarelist@molenda.com \
--cc=overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com \
--cc=pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).