Re: Bug#104021: New List Request: debian-guile
>>>>> "JL" == James LewisMoss <email@example.com> writes:
Evan> I'm skeptical. Is there enough in common between the
Evan> multiple (>5?) Scheme implementations in Debian, that it
Evan> would make sense to coordinate the effort?
JL> They can share scheme only libraries (slib for one, there are
Are you really interested in MAKING this happen, or are you just
stating that it COULD happen? I have a feeling that you're just
postulating this theoretical possibility to make some kind of obscure
Evan> Why don't we wait until there ARE lists like debian-bigloo,
Evan> debian-mzscheme, debian-mitscheme, etc., to consolidate,
Evan> before we prematurely consolidate them?
JL> Because it's easier to do this now than later.
Ah yes! But it's that much easier again to not do it at all --
especially if it's not necessary, expedient, or useful.
JL> Do you actually think there will be enough traffic on a
JL> debian-guile mailing list to actually make creating a new
JL> mailing list a good thing?
I can state unequivocally that there will be as much traffic as on
the majority of other debian-* mailing lists.
Anyways, I still am unconvinced of the necessity for a pan-scheme
mailing list. I see the collection of interests around Guile to be
more cohesive, and to have more potential for discussion, than the
collection of interests around all Scheme implementations.