{"thread":{"id":"14551","subject":"[RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","startedAt":"2008-07-20T20:51:25Z","lastAt":"2008-07-21T10:21:23Z","messageCount":15,"participants":["Miklos Vajna","Stephan Beyer","Junio C Hamano","Jakub Narebski","Petr Baudis","Sverre Rabbelier","Andreas Ericsson","Pierre Habouzit","Johannes Schindelin"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"84065","messageId":"20080720205125.GP10347@genesis.frugalware.org","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Miklos Vajna","fromEmail":"vmiklos@frugalware.org","sentAt":"2008-07-20T20:51:25Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T20:51:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"vmiklos@frugalware.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/401c1cbbb3a5d13e650c691a2c71d6fd0b80df1a01bc74d9f1972675dd58f2bd?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi,\n\nAs far as I remember, it was Petr Baudis who first asked on IRC if\nthese threads (being so big and deep) are annoying for other people as\nwell or not.\n\nI think it's just hard to follow the discussion as the subject is\nusually not changed, so for example when the subject contains \"merge\", I\ncarefully read that mail, but I can easily miss such a mail if it's\nstill \"What's cooking in\".\n\nAn other problem with deep threads is that it just doesn't fit in one's\nscreen, so I had to use tricks for example to see if a mail was a reply\nto my mail or to some other mail.\n\nSo here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio,\nof course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header\nwhen replying to those mails?\n\nIf those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are\nhappy with the current situation then sorry for the noise.\n\nThanks.\n"},{"id":"84067","messageId":"20080720205852.GA5950@leksak.fem-net","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"20080720205125.GP10347@genesis.frugalware.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Stephan Beyer","fromEmail":"s-beyer@gmx.net","sentAt":"2008-07-20T20:58:52Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T20:58:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"s-beyer@gmx.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/143889?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nMiklos Vajna wrote:\n> I think it's just hard to follow the discussion as the subject is\n> usually not changed, so for example when the subject contains \"merge\", I\n> carefully read that mail, but I can easily miss such a mail if it's\n> still \"What's cooking in\".\n\nI agree that changing a subject (with \"(was: )\") is nicer to\nfind specific mails later.\n\n> So here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio,\n> of course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header\n> when replying to those mails?\n\n\"Everyone should\" bla usually does not work in open communities.\n\nAnd why not vice versa?\nA new \"What's cooking in \" mail with new cookings could start a new\nthread instead of replying to old \"What's cooking in\" mails...\n\n> If those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are\n> happy with the current situation then sorry for the noise.\n\nHm, I don't really care.\n\nMutt is able to link and break threads with\n\n\t# break-thread break the thread in two\n\t& link-threads link tagged message to the current one\n\nso I am able to design the threads as I like it ;)\n(And I am also able to change subjects as I like, so I don't have a\nproblem.)\n\nRegards,\n Stephan\n\n-- \nStephan Beyer , PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F\n"},{"id":"84068","messageId":"7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"20080720205125.GP10347@genesis.frugalware.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2008-07-20T21:05:30Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T21:05:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Miklos Vajna writes:\n\n> So here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio,\n> of course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header\n> when replying to those mails?\n>\n> If those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are\n> happy with the current situation then sorry for the noise.\n\nI could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or\nperhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n\nBut I think it is a good idea to change the subject when responding to one\npart of the message to say which topic your response is about.\n\nI do not know if stripping \"In-reply-to\" is a great idea, though. They\nare responses, aren't they?\n"},{"id":"84069","messageId":"20080720212144.GQ10347@genesis.frugalware.org","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Miklos Vajna","fromEmail":"vmiklos@frugalware.org","sentAt":"2008-07-20T21:21:44Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T21:21:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"vmiklos@frugalware.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/401c1cbbb3a5d13e650c691a2c71d6fd0b80df1a01bc74d9f1972675dd58f2bd?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 02:05:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> But I think it is a good idea to change the subject when responding to one\n> part of the message to say which topic your response is about.\n\nIt was me as well, who did not change the subject; I'll try to pay\nattention to do so.\n\n> I do not know if stripping \"In-reply-to\" is a great idea, though. They\n> are responses, aren't they?\n\nPersonally I'm fine with mutt's \"break thread\" feature, I just proposed\nit because I saw it was mentioned multiple times that gmane does not\nhandle huge threads nicely. But yes, you have reason about keeping the\nheader makes sense as well.\n"},{"id":"84074","messageId":"m3sku4w822.fsf@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-07-20T21:38:04Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T21:38:04Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano writes:\n\n> Miklos Vajna writes:\n> \n> > So here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio,\n> > of course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header\n> > when replying to those mails?\n> >\n> > If those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are\n> > happy with the current situation then sorry for the noise.\n> \n> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue,\n\nOr perhaps break it from time to time (on major release perhaps?).\n\n> or perhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n\nVery good idea.\n\n> But I think it is a good idea to change the subject when responding to one\n> part of the message to say which topic your response is about.\n> \n> I do not know if stripping \"In-reply-to\" is a great idea, though. They\n> are responses, aren't they?\n\nThe problem with above is if you are replying to many points\nsimultaneously.\n\nI think however that patches should rather start a new thread.\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"84077","messageId":"20080720214616.GB5950@leksak.fem-net","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"m3sku4w822.fsf@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Stephan Beyer","fromEmail":"s-beyer@gmx.net","sentAt":"2008-07-20T21:46:16Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T21:46:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"s-beyer@gmx.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/143889?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nJakub Narebski wrote:\n> I think however that patches should rather start a new thread.\n\nIf a patch is a consequence of a discussion in a thread, I see no\nreason, why the patch should not be in that thread.\n\nRegards.\n\n-- \nStephan Beyer , PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F\n"},{"id":"84078","messageId":"20080720214811.GF32184@machine.or.cz","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Petr Baudis","fromEmail":"pasky@suse.cz","sentAt":"2008-07-20T21:48:11Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T21:48:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"pasky@ucw.cz","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/18439?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 02:05:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or\n> perhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n\n> But I think it is a good idea to change the subject when responding to one\n> part of the message to say which topic your response is about.\n> \n> I do not know if stripping \"In-reply-to\" is a great idea, though. They\n> are responses, aren't they?\n\nI think responses to the what's cooking mails per se should certainly\nhave in-reply-to set properly. I'm rather wondering if there's some\nspecific reasons why do you keep all the \"What's cooking\" mails in a\nsingle thread? If there is nothing particular, keeping each \"What's\ncooking\" report in a separate mail might be easier on a portion of\nreaders. I will use break-thread now (thanks, didn't know about it!) but\nthe practice seems strange to me.\n\n-- \n\t\t\t\tPetr \"Pasky\" Baudis\nAs in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know\nits true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie\n"},{"id":"84090","messageId":"bd6139dc0807201550v27d6db3epd0d0b4bc663e0351@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"alturin@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-07-20T22:50:40Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T22:50:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alturin@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or\n> perhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n\nThe downside of this is that it'll be less easy to see the difference\nwith the previous version. GMail tries to mark text that appeared a\nprevious mail in purple, so new text 'stands out' in the regular black\n(it's not that good at it though).\nSo WRT to not making them follow ups, an improvement would be a diff\nwith the previous version online somewhere, although I guess the\nhttp://tinyurl.com/todobranch is exactly that modulo your (Junio's)\ncomments on the topics.\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"84099","messageId":"7v3am42lk2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"bd6139dc0807201550v27d6db3epd0d0b4bc663e0351@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2008-07-20T23:16:45Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T23:16:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Sverre Rabbelier\" writes:\n\n> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or\n>> perhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n>\n> The downside of this is that it'll be less easy to see the difference\n> with the previous version.\n\nMy vague recollection is that it was Pasky who complained long time ago\nwhen \"What's in\" was not a follow-up to its previous round, which led me\nto switch my workflow to send them in the current form. You cannot\nsatisfy certain people no matter what you do.\n"},{"id":"84100","messageId":"bd6139dc0807201619g6c268488kd6b45109a246638d@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"7v3am42lk2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"alturin@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-07-20T23:19:37Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-20T23:19:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alturin@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or\n>>> perhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n>>\n>> The downside of this is that it'll be less easy to see the difference\n>> with the previous version.\n>\n> My vague recollection is that it was Pasky who complained long time ago\n> when \"What's in\" was not a follow-up to its previous round, which led me\n> to switch my workflow to send them in the current form. You cannot\n> satisfy certain people no matter what you do.\n\nAdd an interdiff at the bottom of the mail? You can't satisfy\neverybody no matter what you do, but you can come quite far, it\nusually means you have to do a lot of work to do so though.\n"},{"id":"84134","messageId":"7vprp7yie5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"bd6139dc0807201619g6c268488kd6b45109a246638d@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2008-07-21T04:24:02Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-21T04:24:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Sverre Rabbelier\" writes:\n\n> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>>> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or\n>>>> perhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n>>>\n>>> The downside of this is that it'll be less easy to see the difference\n>>> with the previous version.\n>>\n>> My vague recollection is that it was Pasky who complained long time ago\n>> when \"What's in\" was not a follow-up to its previous round, which led me\n>> to switch my workflow to send them in the current form. You cannot\n>> satisfy certain people no matter what you do.\n>\n> Add an interdiff at the bottom of the mail? You can't satisfy\n> everybody no matter what you do, but you can come quite far, it\n> usually means you have to do a lot of work to do so though.\n\nDo you think I have an infinite bandwidth? I don't.\n"},{"id":"84139","messageId":"48841E28.9050903@op5.se","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2008-07-21T05:27:04Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-21T05:27:04Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Miklos Vajna writes:\n> \n>> So here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio,\n>> of course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header\n>> when replying to those mails?\n>>\n>> If those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are\n>> happy with the current situation then sorry for the noise.\n> \n> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or\n> perhaps add \"(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)\" at the end of the Subject.\n> \n\nI would very much prefer that (both of them, really). Thunderbird's\nthreading is not so advanced as mutt's, so I can't break threads so easily.\n\nThe most annoying part is that the timebased auto-delete from thunderbird\nmeans I get a new thread spawning in the middle of an old partially deleted\none. It can be very confusing.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231\n"},{"id":"84143","messageId":"20080721063332.GA15596@artemis.madism.org","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Pierre Habouzit","fromEmail":"madcoder@debian.org","sentAt":"2008-07-21T06:33:32Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-21T06:33:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"madcoder@debian.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/44708?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Miklos Vajna writes:\n> \n> > So here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio,\n> > of course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header\n> > when replying to those mails?\n> >\n> > If those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are\n> > happy with the current situation then sorry for the noise.\n> \n> I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue,\n\n That'd be great, especially since it's trivial with decent MUAs to get\nall issues with a filter (l in mutt, kmail/thunderbird has what it\nneeds, and I would be surprised if GNUS or pine cannot do that).\n\n-- \n·O· Pierre Habouzit\n··O madcoder@debian.org\nOOO http://www.madism.org\n"},{"id":"84168","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0807211219080.3305@eeepc-johanness","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"48841E28.9050903@op5.se","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2008-07-21T10:19:54Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-21T10:19:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\n[Cc: list trimmed]\n\nOn Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Andreas Ericsson wrote:\n\n> Thunderbird's threading is not so advanced as mutt's, so I can't break \n> threads so easily.\n> \n> The most annoying part is that the timebased auto-delete from thunderbird\n> means I get a new thread spawning in the middle of an old partially deleted\n> one. It can be very confusing.\n\nLast time I checked, Thunderbird was Open Source...\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"84169","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0807211220150.3305@eeepc-johanness","threadId":"14551","inReplyTo":"20080721063332.GA15596@artemis.madism.org","subject":"Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat \"What's cooking in git.git\" threads","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2008-07-21T10:21:23Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-21T10:21:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:\n\n> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > Miklos Vajna writes:\n> > \n> > > So here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio,\n> > > of course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header\n> > > when replying to those mails?\n> > >\n> > > If those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are\n> > > happy with the current situation then sorry for the noise.\n> > \n> > I could make \"What's cooking\" not a follow-up to the previous issue,\n> \n> That'd be great, especially since it's trivial with decent MUAs to get\n> all issues with a filter (l in mutt, kmail/thunderbird has what it\n> needs, and I would be surprised if GNUS or pine cannot do that).\n\nBut what you lose is the ability to tell \"this cooking came directly after \nthat cooking\".\n\nAnd in the GMane interface, it is sure a nice thing to be able to go back \nand forth between cookings in a thread.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"}]}