From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Avoiding replies on emacs-diffs Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:46:39 -0400 Message-ID: <87y699olf4.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <87eib2iz0p.fsf_-_@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <878w1ao559.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1288838861 11673 80.91.229.12 (4 Nov 2010 02:47:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 02:47:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 04 03:46:52 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDpqk-0000g8-GP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 03:46:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52160 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDpqj-0005Ld-QW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:46:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46770 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDpqd-0005LQ-6x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:46:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDpqc-0002mW-0b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:46:43 -0400 Original-Received: from osh-net-219-98.onshore.net ([66.146.219.98]:49676 helo=sanpietro.red-bean.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDpqb-0002mI-Rt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:46:41 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36039 helo=kfogel-work ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PDpqa-0006sk-98; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:46:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:21:24 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:132349 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>>>> PS could you reply to emacs-devel rather than emacs-diffs in these cases? >>>>> (I don't know why emacs-diffs is even configured to accept postings >>>>> other than from Savannah.) >>>> Yes, I get bitten by this all the time. Indeed emacs-diffs should >>>> refuse such postings. >>> Adding a header "Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org" could help. >> Also: just set the 'Reply-to' header on emacs-diffs@ mails to go to >> emacs-devel@? > >That would suck, just as much as other uses of reply-to: it would make >it unnecessarily difficult to reply personally to the committer. Well, it's more complicated than that, I think... There are two separate but related issues: 1) The "can't find my way back home" problem, which is why Reply-to munging is often objected to when performed on mails people actually posted. We don't have this problem here, though. 2) The "reader wants to reply to just the author" problem, which is related to (1) in that if you can't even find out the author's preferred Reply-to address, there's no way you can reply to the author. But that's not the (2) we're talking about here. Our (2) is simply a matter of removing the emacs-devel@ address when following up. Replying to just the author should be no more difficult than it is now, since the commit email is already not an email posted by the committer and cannot be relied on to have an existing Reply-to header with the committer's preferred email address anyway. Another way to look at it: A commit email is an email *from the version control system* to the maintainer group, announcing a change. That's why it makes sense for the maintainer group to be the default forum for replies. Problem (1) doesn't apply here at all, and problem (2) doesn't really apply either, since we already have problem (2) and this doesn't make it worse, and anyway it's not really a problem because commits are public events to which public followup (if any) is normally appropriate. Since most of the time we want discussion of a change to happen among the maintainer group, having the version control system set that as the default is reasonable. (It would be totally different if emacs-diffs@ were a mailing list that humans posted heterogenous messages to directly, of course.) This is all based on experience, for what it's worth. I've worked on projects that actually do this with their commit emails, and it's been great. People seem to like it, and I don't recall hearing any complaints about it. -Karl