Greetings,
* Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote:
> On 11/23/20 5:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > With the changes to pgsql-announce made a couple of months ago to have
> > it synced up with the news on www.postgresql.org, we are now
> > "archiving" news posts both on www.postgresql.org/about/newsarchive/
> > and on www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-announce, with the second one
> > archiving it without the formatting.
> >
> > I suggest that we stop the archiving of the list itself, and stick to
> > just the news archive. We can also update the list description to
> > explicitly say this with a link back of course.
> >
> > (We will of course continue to *send* it to the list, I'm just talking
> > about the archives)
> >
> > AFAICT the only actual lost functionality in this would be that you
> > can't get old news in mbox format.
>
> -1; I think it may cause confusion to people who are subscribed to the
> mailing lists who are looking up things that may be in the mailing list
> archives.
>
> Additionally, the email did technically go over the mailing list, and
> per our archives policy[1], "this site is intended to provide an
> accurate representation of the activity on the lists, and as such will
> not be modified."
>
> While I love our new news system, I think the archives are supposed to
> serve the purpose of being the mailing list archives, and if we are
> sending out mail over a public mailing list, we should archive it.
>
> Additionally, the 3rd party mailing list aggregators are going to keep
> archiving it anyway, so we may as well maintain the canonical source of
> truth.
+1 to all of the above, and I know that I, at least, would get annoyed
at having to remember that I can't find the archive of an email that
was sent to -announce because we wanted to save, what, a few megs a
year?
So, -1 to the proposal for my part too.
Thanks,
Stephen
