From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org>
Received: from cgf.cx (external.cgf.cx [107.170.62.102])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6BB385B833
 for <overseers@sourceware.org>; Fri,  3 Apr 2020 16:36:24 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2D6BB385B833
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx DFCAF407C1
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-CGF-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
 spammy=H*r:unknown, biggest, nice, H*M:cgf
Received: by cgf.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 03 Apr 2020 12:36:21 -0400
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:36:21 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gnu.org>
To: Overseers mailing list <overseers@sourceware.org>
Cc: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= <mliska@suse.cz>,
 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>,
 gfortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>, overseers@gcc.gnu.org,
 gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: mailman customization
Message-ID: <20200403163621.GA2154@cgf.cx>
Mail-Followup-To: Overseers mailing list <overseers@sourceware.org>,
 Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= <mliska@suse.cz>,
 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
 Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>,
 gfortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>, overseers@gcc.gnu.org,
 gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <3f4869fd-d852-a8a6-117f-e767a417ff95@codesourcery.com>
 <AE4A7165-A17C-4341-99E4-C402B3647C71@tkoenig.net>
 <8d833f8d-243f-e8b8-69ed-124ef33b7746@codesourcery.com>
 <20200309102520.GQ2156@tucnak>
 <69bd8396-1e11-6b87-18f2-658fd171ebc2@suse.cz>
 <2b833ee3-ffdf-c002-a476-458465f0c6bd@suse.cz>
 <20200403155420.GI323051@elastic.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200403155420.GI323051@elastic.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1162.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_SOFTFAIL,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-BeenThere: overseers@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Overseers mailing list <overseers.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/overseers>,
 <mailto:overseers-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/>
List-Post: <mailto:overseers@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:overseers-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/overseers>,
 <mailto:overseers-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 16:36:25 -0000

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:54:20AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> I believe we can quite easily customize mailman 2.1 to match our needs.
>> The biggest challenge I see is a proper testing as I don't see it easy
>> to set up a local mailman instance. I've got a patch that changes:
>
>I suppose we can do some local RPM respins - as long as these changes
>are small and rare.  Even with a deadish upstream, distro reporting
>would be nice, at least at the centos/fedora point (?), as a reference
>place to stash the patch and get us a bug#.

I don't think most of the patch would be acceptable upstream since it
changes default behavior without any way to revert it.