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 D4EA43870856 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 20:28:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D4EA43870856 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx 70314400A9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-CGF-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 spammy=myself, H*r:unknown, H*M:cgf, addition Received: by cgf.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 07 May 2020 16:28:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 16:28:39 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs Message-ID: <20200507202839.GA15871@cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, overseers@sourceware.org References: <20200506141139.GJ2375@tucnak> <20200506144446.GB2466959@elastic.org> <87r1vwxehp.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <20200507192330.GE31009@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200507192330.GE31009@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-486.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_NONE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NEUTRAL, TXREP, USER_IN_WHITELIST 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: Thu, 07 May 2020 20:28:43 -0000 On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >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 ;-) ) It's been suggested many times both before we rolled out the new sourceware and after. I'm not a real fan of the interface but at least it's being supported. It's just not supported in RHEL 8 right now, as far as I know. To reiterate our current philosophy: We're trying to use supported software on sourceware and not have to roll our own and worry about keeping track of upstream fixes and security issues.