Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 13:02:14 -0700 From: Chris <portmaster@BSDforge.com> To: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mail/mailman v3? Message-ID: <eec989d7f0083b21b5f2d9f2438261fc@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <8684b670-d968-7457-231e-720ab8449190@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:33:41 +0200 Matthias Andree matthias=2Eandree@gmx=2Ede s= aid > [Dan, Kurt, this is a re-send of my message written 2020-04-24 with a > different sender address=2E] >=20 > Am 24=2E04=2E20 um 15:04 schrieb Kurt Jaeger: > > Hi! > > > >> With mail/mailman being Python 2=2E7 (which is end-of-life), and mailman= 3 > > being Python 3 compatible: > >> > >> Do you know of any plans to port Mailman 3? > > > > There's already a PR about that: > > > > https://bugs=2Efreebsd=2Eorg/bugzilla/show_bug=2Ecgi?id=3D225543 > > > > The patch itself is fine, but we need run-tests=2E > > > > This means: If you want to help, > > - use that patch, > > - build mailman3, > > - and install it somewhere and > > - test all the use-cases that you can think of > > - then write some docs on how to move an existing mailman2 site > > to mailman3 > > - and give ideas how to handle list archives > > *especially* keeping the URLs identical (!) > > > > And, speaking as one of the postmaster@ team: > > As lists=2Efreebsd=2Eorg uses mailman2, we need this! > > > > postmaster@ has not yet decided if we really want to move to mailman3, > > so we are open to other options=2E The mail archive is the biggest hurdle= 8-( > > >=20 > Thanks Dan for the question, and Kurt for answering that question=2E >=20 > As the mailman2 maintainer frequently being asked about mailman3, here > are my thoughts on it=2E >=20 > TL;DR: >=20 > mailman3 documentation is an untidy inconsistent mess, is in my > perception not honestly and outright advertising the mailman 2=2Ex > features that have not yet been reimplemented=2E >=20 > The minimum version to be ported should be the latest release as they > are still re-adding lost features, for instance, 3=2E3=2E1 is current has > brought bounce processing=2E >=20 > I am not driving mailman3 efforts, don't want be in the first line or > maintain a mailman 3=2Ex port, but may help here or there if I am being > asked on advice=2E >=20 >=20 > Long version: >=20 > I have looked at Mailman 3 again and again, and the more often I look, > the more I balk at it=2E Mailman 3 will be five years old coming Tuesday > (3=2E0=2E0 released 2015-04-28), and the first-hand documentation is > scattered across web sites and inconsistent, not frequently updated for > the new releases=2E >=20 > Mailman 3 is also a new product, "Mailman 3 is a fully rewritten code > base=2E" > <https://mailman=2Ereadthedocs=2Eio/en/latest/src/mailman/docs/release-notes=2E= html>=2E >=20 >=20 > It could bear a new name in honesty, and more importantly that means all > the workarounds and experience from 2=2Ex are lost, and have to be > re-written, too=2E And some have not been, and they admit it on the hind > pages=2E >=20 > - FEATURE ADVERTISING COMPLETENESS: >=20 > In quality and features 3=2Ex appears to boast new "features" over 2=2Ex but > does not in the same prominent place list what's missing=2E Most of the > "features" are implementation details that I don't deem critical for > day-to-day operation=2E >=20 > Others were just added less than a week ago, f=2Ei=2E bounce processing only > arrived in 3=2E3=2E1 - and the web sites above advertising feature advances > over 2=2Ex are at 3=2E3=2E0 or older status and DO NOT MENTION bounce > processing missing, so the only conclusion is that there are more 2=2Ex > features missing in 3=2Ex without being prominently marked as such=2E >=20 > Quoting NEWS=2Erst > > Features > > -------- > > * Add support for processing of email bounce events=2E Thanks to Aaryan B= hagat > > for > > working on this as a part of his GSoC project and Thanks to Google fo= r > > sponsoring the project as a part of GSoC=2E(See !584) > Look right ABOVE the 3=2E3=2E0 section=2E > <https://gitlab=2Ecom/mailman/mailman/-/raw/master/src/mailman/docs/NEWS=2Ers= t?inline=3Dfalse> > (gitlab cannot render it with decoration, this is a download link > instead, some 80 kB) >=20 > - MIGRATION: >=20 > http://docs=2Elist=2Eorg/en/latest/migration=2Ehtml mentions breaking archive > URLs, and also "Some configuration and settings aren=E2=80=99t available = in > Mailman 3=E2=80=99s UI yet, so even though those settings will be migrate= d to > Mailman 3, you may not be able to change them from the Web UI today=2E All > of those settings should be exposed in the UI very soon=2E >=20 > Mailman 3 doesn=E2=80=99t have support for bounce processing yet, but it = is on > the roadmap=2E" >=20 > - so obviously the migration guide is outdated, too=2E >=20 >=20 > - DOCUMENTATION TIDINESS: >=20 > Mailman 3 documentation and everything is scattered across what feels > half a dozen places, all inconsistent WRT what is the current version, > features and all that, and obviously not kept up to date with releases=2E >=20 > - https://mailman=2Ereadthedocs=2Eio/ > - https://docs=2Emailman3=2Eorg/en/latest/ (not sure how that relates to > readthedocs, may be an alias or a copy) >=20 > - https://wiki=2Elist=2Eorg/Mailman3 >=20 > - http://www=2Elist=2Eorg/ >=20 > - https://gitlab=2Ecom/mailman >=20 > - https://pypi=2Eorg/project/mailman/ which seems to be the most up to > date download >=20 >=20 > - DEVELOPMENT AND COMPONENT CONCISENESS >=20 > The Gitlab site show many side projects with unclear relation to the > "mailman suite", no easily accessible roadmap besides a five-or-six-item > list of what makes up the suite=2E >=20 > Given the shape of the documents, and even assuming that documentation > is the first thing that falls short in commercial time-pressed > development, I find that messy=2E >=20 > There is certainly a LOT of work to do, work out processes to get > documentation consistent with the code releases, then actually do that=2E >=20 >=20 > - PERSONAL CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK >=20 > This is a subjective and personal note of someone who has not read a > single line of Mailman 3 implementation, but only its documentation > that's accessible from web sites and several one-or-two clicks deep > hyperlink chains, but is asked again and again (as mailman 2 maintainer) > about mailman 3=2E >=20 > I have shown how I feel that the documentation is untidy, inconsistent, > and partially unmaintained on sites that are linked from list=2Eorg=2E >=20 > I have shown how I personally do not trust that mailman 3 is > feature-complete when looking at the mailman 2=2Ex feature set=2E >=20 >=20 > So assuming we've had a port, what calms a potential porter's or > maintainer's mind that he's not going to be drowned in user support? >=20 > Personlly I fear that a port would bring with it lots of people getting > tripped up by the inconsistent web sites, and it would probably add more > support work than the sum of all other ports I am currently listed > MAINTAINER for=2E >=20 > So I don't want to play a *major* role in the porting, feel free to ask > me here or there, and I will not become maintainer now=2E >=20 > If Python 3=2Ex were not a rather important argument, I would have written > a polite form of "leave me alone with that immature stuff and would have > moved on=2E >=20 > - FINAL QUESTIONS >=20 > Leaving Python 3=2Ex compatibility aside, what good arguments can anyone > weigh in for Mailman 3=2Ex who is using it in practice (f=2Ei=2E on Linux)? >=20 > How is it better? >=20 > Is it mature? >=20 > Would it be plausible to port Tauthon 2=2E8=2E2 (I am not doing that) and > continue using mailman2 on it (I might help with this part)? > <https://github=2Ecom/naftaliharris/tauthon>; In sentiment I am inline with your thoughts as well=2E Would it be a worthy project to create a mailman(2)-lts port? I'd be fully up for helping, and or creating it myself=2E There's a port that's a shim for py2=2Ex-->py3=2Ex called 2to3, or something like that=2E It also wouldn't be that difficult to simply modify mailman(2) to adopt the py3=2Ex language changes=2E My 3=C2=A2 for what they're worth=2E :) --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eec989d7f0083b21b5f2d9f2438261fc>