Absence of such mailing list makes communication between developers more difficult (because asking questions through Issues on github, or through bugs in this bugzilla have it's own limitations). i dont' see such mailing list on page https://archives.gentoo.org/lists and mail server says: 550 5.1.1 <dotnet+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table
Dotnet project: Can you please confirm this request?
please comfirm, because dotnet@gentoo.org email have no mechanism for subscribe/unsibscribe, and it have no web-accessible archive, and is not listed with other lists like "gentoo-lisp". I don't see why dotnet is worse that lisp. And right now, when "core" comes into it's full strength, it's necessary to discuss both it, and mono, and transition issues
Arsen: you're confusing lists with mail aliases. A project MUST have a mail alias. It is not open to subscribers, you need to be a dev to edit who is on it. Generally not open as it might contain security issues. A project MAY have a mailing list, which is public except in limited circumstances.
I can confirm the request, if that could be handy for dotnet contributors alias should exist
As I understood "alias" is the dotnet@gentoo.org, and it's already exist. And project MAY have a list with open subscription. I am aware about the existence of dotnet@gentoo.org, and I want the mailing list with open subscribtion.
I.e. it is not necessary them to be the same list. What I want is the visibility on that page and ability to open subscribe. If this will be a second separate list it is ok for me.
Arsen: I went and dig up mail traffic logs, because something seemed off here: your claim that your were missing out on stuff. For the last 30 days, there were a total of 429 mails that went to dotnet@gentoo.org. Of that 429 mails, based on the sender, helo, subject line: - 10 mails from bugzilla (about 4 bugs including this one) - 361 spams via @qq.com - 58 more spams from diverse locations So no humans have manually mailed dotnet@gentoo.org in the last 30 days. You've also never mailed any developer directly. There are only 2 developers on the dotnet alias presently, and zero traffic on the alias in the last month that would have been better served by being on a new mailing list. Rather than a new mailing list, I suggest you take your dotnet discussions to the main gentoo-dev mailing list. That way it won't be entirely lost because most people aren't aware of the new list, and ALL Gentoo developers are already on the list (they are required to be on it by policy). If you're concerned about the 'restricted' posting policy, I'm sure cynede would be willing to put your name on the permission list (and if he isn't, I'd put it there myself).
> your claim that your were missing out on stuff. No, this is not what i claim. > 361 spams via @qq.com > 58 more spams from diverse locations That's impressive facts. > You've also never mailed any developer directly. Yes, I never mailed to dotnet@gentoo.org, because this have no sense from my point of view (it is more efficient to create bugs in this bugzilla, than to mail). I don't understand what you mean by "directly" - I just don't know anybody's mail addresses. > You've also never mailed any developer directly. I think this is because this address is perceived as a technical one, not as a place for discussion. > Rather than a new mailing list, I suggest you take your dotnet discussions to the main gentoo-dev mailing list. I think that this is not very good idea. For the simple questions one can just join #dentoo-dev IRC channel. For complex one many unrelated developers will be disturbed. It is better then to write to forum. > I'm sure cynede would be willing to put your name on the permission list (and if he isn't, I'd put it there myself). But this is not what I want. There a people, which are not gentoo developers, but have interest to the dotnet overlay (I see them on github). THEY should have the possibility to join by their will, like to IRC channel. After seen your facts about proportion of spam/messages, I started thinking about forum. But I don't see overlay-specific of technology-specific segments on forums.gentoo.org.
Is it possible to add a section under "Architectures & Platforms", with parts like "python", "lisp", "java", "dotnet", etc?
Have you asked those people if they'd be actually interested in any of the proposed things? It's easy to create something new, then realize nobody's really interested in this or that form of forum/mailing list/etc..
You are asking me, and I answer: I am interested in having "dotnet" subforum under "Technologies" (non existing yet) section of forums.gentoo.org
(In reply to Arsen Shnurkov from comment #11) > You are asking me, and I answer: I am interested in having "dotnet" subforum > under "Technologies" (non existing yet) section of forums.gentoo.org Hi. If you want to talk to the forums team, please join #gentoo-forums in the freenode irc network or email them directly to forum-mods AT gentoo DOT org. I suspect your first answer is going to be that for opening a new sub-forum, there should be enough interest / topics to justify that, though.
having sub-forum for gentoo dotnet developers and users could be good thing.
(In reply to Cynede from comment #13) > having sub-forum for gentoo dotnet developers and users could be good thing. Open, or one with limited access? As the forums are currently laid out, we do not have a category that seems to neatly fit with dotnet as a toolkit having its own dedicated open subfurom, but there would be no need to make a new one on the basis of what would, at least initially, be essentially a probationary subforum (at least in the sense of if it has little to no use in practice, there would be no reason to keep it around anyway). For an open subforum, we could provisionally place it alongside the other support forums, or under Other Things Gentoo, as suits the dotnet project. For a limited access subforum, we would need to know which users should be allowed access, a suitable category is already in place. Also, in either case, we would need to know what you preferred name would be, and a brief canonical description of the subforum.
The description for the Portage & Programming category invites questions about programming. Feel free to use it for your dotnet needs. Should there be enough traffic to warrant a dedicated category we can create one at that time.
Here is the quote from description: "Problems with emerge or ebuilds? Have a basic programming question about C, PHP, Perl, BASH or something else?" I have no significant problems with emerge or ebuilds. No problems to ask about it too. Also I have no problems about BASIC tools (like xbuild and msbuild). I have problems related to packaging dotnet programs (many of them, many packages). These problems are related not to gentoo, but to software being packaged (something like internal project structure of some p2p product). Seems, that such questions don't fit into the section proposed by you, if I read the description formally. And there a many such packages (millions of them), which are present on nuget.org, but should be repackaged with portage to achieve goals of license verification, repeatable source builds and offline installation. For example "smuxi" was packaged by me, then repackaged by it's original author, because he dislike my selection of commit SHA1 in version. And now it doesn't installs, and it fails to install from DVD-media, because accepted version requires online git access. I object that it was accepted into overlay. Many other questions exists in dotnet, they are not related to portage, but prevent from using software in gentoo according to gentoo's way.
> Open, or one with limited access? Open, i wrote that in comment 6 - https://bugs.gentoo.org/656798#c6 > As the forums are currently laid out, we do not have a category I proposed the name "Technologies" in the comment 11 - https://bugs.gentoo.org/656798#c11 > there would be no need to make a new one on the basis of what would, at least initially, be essentially a probationary subforum (at least > in the sense of if it has little to no use in practice, there would be no > reason to keep it around anyway). I disagre with this opinion. I have no doubts, that I can alone create hundreds of (more a less meaningfull) threads in no time (I have such experience in another forums). > provisionally place it alongside the other support forums That's are halfmeasures. Doubts to the darks side lead.
One advantage of forums, is that I will be able to fix spelling/translating mistakes in my messages, which I can't fix in this bugtracker :)
yes, sure open
(In reply to Cynede from comment #19) > yes, sure open For the time being, would kallamej's proposal in comment #15 suit your needs?
I would prefer a separate section and separate forum, because this gives more visibility, may attract new people, and give less disturbance to python-biased people in their existing communication structure, which tend to actively reject dotnet technologies.
