From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA45395CC3F for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 19:23:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org BCA45395CC3F Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 047JNUue032245; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:23:31 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 047JNU7Y032241; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:23:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 14:23:30 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Jakub Jelinek , overseers@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs Message-ID: <20200507192330.GE31009@gate.crashing.org> References: <20200506141139.GJ2375@tucnak> <20200506144446.GB2466959@elastic.org> <87r1vwxehp.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r1vwxehp.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, TXREP, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR, T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org 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: Thu, 07 May 2020 19:23:45 -0000 Hi! On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:48:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > By the way, the public-inbox software > (), as recently mentioned in a > different thread discussing deficiencies of Mailman's Pipermail, also > does support this: > > (random example). (I have not yet really looked into that software > myself, but from the little I read about it, it seems conceptually > simple, "easy", good.) > > If there's sufficient interest (users) and commitment (overseers), we > could install this on sourceware, in addition to what we've currently > got? I would very much like this. *All* of the problems with the current mail archive, as well as all of the problems with the one we had before, do not exist with public-inbox. (It probably has problems all of its own, of course ;-) ) Segher