[arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?

Xyne xyne at archlinux.ca
Sat Oct 12 07:37:15 UTC 2013

Isaac Dupree wrote:

> On 10/21/10 01:39, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > On 20/10/10 15:56, Rémy Oudompheng wrote:
> >> On 2010/10/20 Xyne<xyne at archlinux.ca>  wrote:
> >>> Is there a reason that everyone seems to send their replies to individual
> >>> posters and only CC to the list?
> >>
> >> The mailing-list is missing an automatic "Reply-To" header that usually
> >> exists on other mailing-lists. It makes things difficult when posting with
> >> improper mail clients like GMail.
> >
> > I'll see if I can't fix this during the day.
> Please don't.  Nearly no technical mailing-list sets Reply-To, and in 
> particular neither the Arch lists nor the Haskell lists do.*

I don't know about the Haskell lists, but the Arch lists that I follow use
Reply-To Headers and none of them appear to suffer any disadvantages from
using them:

Reply-To: "Arch User Repository \(AUR\) Development" <aur-dev at archlinux.org>

Reply-To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository \(AUR\)"
<aur-general at archlinux.org>

Reply-To: Discussion list for pacman development <pacman-dev at archlinux.org>

>  If it's 
> really impossible to use mailing-lists with GMail (I don't know, I don't 
> use GMail) then I guess you should find another client.  Some clients 
> have a "Reply To List" specifically, and for those that don't, "Reply To 
> All" or equivalent is usually acceptable enough (are there any clients 
> that don't have this??) (it produces the effect Xyne notes of "Is there 
> a reason that everyone seems to send their replies to individual posters 
> and only CC to the list?", but this works out acceptably in practice 
> because To and CC have the same effect - emails go there -, and because 
> the mailing-list defaults not to send extra copies to people who are 
> already To/CC'ed)

It doesn't "work out in practice" for me. I filter my messages into different
directories for each mailing list and having one that doesn't work the same as
the others is irksome. "To" and "CC" have the "same effect" insofar as the
messages arrive but the rest is not the same.

I think all posts to a list discussion should go directly to the list without
CC'ing others the same message. Replying directly to someone else and CC'ing to
the list is like replying to one person in a conversation while looking
directly at another. Sure, he can hear you, but you're not directing your reply
to the right person and it's somewhat rude.

Given, this may be a client issue and in general I think people should fix
"broken" software rather than expect others to find a workaround for them, but
if a single extra header resolves the issue and is commonly employed on related
lists then I don't see the problem. Furthermore, arguing that each recipient
should implement a manual workaround each time a message is sent instead of a
simpler global workaround on the list doesn't make sense. Neither fixes the
problem at the source but one is far simpler than the other.

> * the old canonical arguments about Reply-To munging pro and con that 
> I'd cite seem to have broken websites now, requiring archive.org usage, 
> but here's an updated one:
> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

They were probably taken down by pedantic overload. :P

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list