Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes: > On 6/12/21 1:06 PM, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 01:04:21 +0300, Nicholas Guriev >> <nicholas@guriev.su> wrote: >>> For the record, the latest digest of the debian-devel@ list #194 >>> consists of 17 emails. 13 of them are ITP forwards, the remaining 4 >>> emails are about ITP forwarding. >> >> This is an exceptional day. debian-devel usually doesn't see that many >> ITP postings on a single day. > > I'm not sure how you have this impression. I've seen many times 10 to 20 > ITP per day sent to d-devel. > I've seen that too, often all at once (dependencies of a NEW node-foo), and server-side procmail or sieve filters can mitigate this, as can client-side rules. Honestly I thought that being able to cope with large quantities of email--researching new solutions and implementing them if necessary--was part of job description of doing Debian work, even though it's also true that one does not need to read most of that mail let alone reply to it. >> I think we shouldn't drive our infrastructure's complexity up just to >> cater for software that is obviously sick. > > +1 > Though there are other reasons why it'd be sensitive to do it (I wont > re-hash the thread...)... +1 It sends the wrong message if we have a bug in commonly used software on the default desktop that is so severe that people discuss accommodating this bug with infrastructure changes rather than fixing the buggy software. Between Evolution, Thunderbird, and Geary, isn't Evolution the one that is supposed to be the most business-friendly, and shouldn't business-friendly also mean that it scales to high-volume lists?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature