Re: MHonArc archives to be retired?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Yeah, me too -- I find the mh ui much nicer (and it also seems a: tp
produce nicer URLS for links, and b: we have existing links to
messages).

W

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 15/02/18 13:47, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Greetings. I got this update to an issue that I had opened about a year
>> ago:
>
> Add me to the list who would not like to see the mhonarc archives
> retired. While I do like the new one, I also often prefer the old
> one.
>
> S
>
>>
>> Forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: ietfdb issue tracker <trac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx, rcross@xxxxxxxx, rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [ietfdb] #2227 (MailArchive: User Interface): Lack of
>>> text wrapping makes MHonArc archive unusable
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 05:32:57 -0000
>>>
>>> #2227: Lack of text wrapping makes MHonArc archive unusable
>>>
>>> Changes (by rcross@xxxxxxxx):
>>>
>>>  * status:  new => closed
>>>  * resolution:   => wontfix
>>>
>>>
>>> Comment:
>>>
>>>  The MHonArc archive will soon be retired.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
>>>   Reporter:  paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx        |      Owner:  rcross@xxxxxxxx
>>>       Type:  defect                       |     Status:  closed
>>>   Priority:  n/a                          |  Milestone:  (None)
>>>  Component:  MailArchive: User Interface  |    Version:  6.x.x
>>> Resolution:  wontfix                      |   Keywords:
>>> ------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
>>
>> Was there an IETF / IAOC decision to retire the MHonArc archive? The new
>> mail archiver still has some pretty serious faults for those of us who
>> need to skim WG archives by date.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>>
>>
>
> --
> PGP key change time for me.
> New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
> NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
> Sorry if that mucks something up;-)



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]