On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:04 AM Miro HronĨok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 30. 08. 20 4:07, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Quick question: for Python there's both python-devel and python-sig --
> this seems overkill for Lua, right? Would starting lua@lists be enough?
Not only it is overkill, but it brings problems.
For the story, see this ticket:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5478
tl;dr the python-devel list is open to anybody
the python-sig is a private (bugzilla mostly) list for the packaging group
people are confused why cannot they see the python-sig list
even when they are members of the Python SIG
For a new SIG I'd do the following:
Establish a FAS group for "Lua provenpackagers". Make sure the name it not to
be
confused with the Lua SIG, but note that the FAS group usually needs to be
called ...-sig. I'd go with lua-packagres-sig or lua-maintainers-sig. Get it a
mailing list needed for Bugzilla, e.g. lua-packagres-sig@lists. Don't mention it
anywhere :)
Establish a general mailing list about Lua. Most likely lua@lists. Mention it
everywhere.
> (Also, I couldn't find documentation on starting a new mailing list.
> Presumably an Infra pagure ticket?)
Yes.
You can look at the ticket I opened for creating the @java-maint-sig
group and mailing list for inspiration :)
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8902
We also have two mailing lists like python - java-devel@lists is the
old list, for general and public discussion, and java-maint-sig@lists
is the new private list for the group's bugzilla account.
Fabio