Last modified: 2012-12-29 07:46:03 UTC
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-March/057107.html > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2010-March/103723.html Was it necessary for the first message to start from this number? http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-April/059811.html
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
That the current situation is counter-intuitive and wrong if there's no reason for it. Practically speaking the consequences are very minor if both archives are kept around, but for instance I wasn't able to find the messages mentioned in bug 22973 (which would have changed id anyway?).
One for Daniel to have a look at I think.
This is like one of the reasons/downsides of there not being a real "rename list" feature. In that process we had to create a new list and either copy archives or merge both archives and recreate them using scripts. http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Mailman#Rename_a_mailing_list unfortunately tickets like this are the downside to renaming lists but we saw them coming and accepted minor glitches in favor of renaming from foundation.
I don't think that we can reasonably fix this Nemo - unless you have any suggestions?
(In reply to comment #5) > I don't think that we can reasonably fix this Nemo - unless you have any > suggestions? Well, yes, it's too late now, fixing it would do more harm than good at this point (by breaking links). Does it happen with other renamed lists? If yes they might have other problems, like duplicated messages in the gz archives, see Gerrit change #34907.
