On 18.07.2007 23:51, Will Woods wrote: > On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 17:23 +0200, David Nielsen wrote: >> ons, 18 07 2007 kl. 10:32 -0400, skrev Will Woods: >>>> 2. Future of fedora-qa-list and fedora-test-list: >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/MailingListReorganization >>> So, at this point, I'm feeling like this: branching off qa-list gave us >>> much better Signal/Noise ratio.. at the price of reducing Signal to >>> near-zero. So maybe we should move back to the older, more obvious way: >>> QA tool development / planning: fedora-devel-list >>> Testing discussion: fedora-test-list (later fedora-devel-users) >>> ..because more eyeballs means more help. >> Yes but it also means significantly more noise, I have +600 mails lying >> around in my fedora-devel folder, I fear that pushing QA to -devel would >> only cause our meeting and testing calls to drown. I'm planning to >> unsubscribe from -devel simply because I can no longer keep up, the pace >> of -qa is much more suitable, I also believe that our lack of mail >> activity is due to the qa team being young and our PR sucking hard. If >> we can sell the idea that women dig guys who do QA I think we'll see >> more postings. > [...] > Maybe we can get topic support for fedora-devel-list, so QA-specific > stuff can be filtered into a special folder, but the rest of the list > still sees all the messages.. Should be possible to define a QA channel on fedora-devel-list. That can be filtered for locally as well (see for example fedora-package-annouce; it has a "X-Topics: Fedora 7" tag, and something similar could be used for QA as well). But it is error prone if some people won't be aware to use the "[QA]" tag (or something like that) for which the mailman filter will look out for. But it should mostly work if QA-people add it in their replies if the initial poster forgot it. CU thl
