From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cgf.cx (external.cgf.cx [107.170.62.102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6BB385B833 for ; 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 To: Overseers mailing list Cc: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= , Jakub Jelinek , Tobias Burnus , gfortran , overseers@gcc.gnu.org, gcc mailing list Subject: Re: mailman customization Message-ID: <20200403163621.GA2154@cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Overseers mailing list , Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= , Jakub Jelinek , Tobias Burnus , gfortran , overseers@gcc.gnu.org, gcc mailing list References: <3f4869fd-d852-a8a6-117f-e767a417ff95@codesourcery.com> <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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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.