From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Friedrich Delgado Subject: Re: Patchwork: Patch 138 Accepted Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:45:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20100716094523.GA14683@taupan.ath.cx> References: <20100715182732.2A6451A649DB@carsten-dominiks-macbook-pro.local> <20100715212857.GA3295@taupan.ath.cx> <14880.1279233570@alphaville.usa.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49876 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OZhTz-0002Q4-3J for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:45:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZhTx-00045n-RT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:45:26 -0400 Received: from dudelab.org ([212.12.33.202]:3189 helo=mail.dudelab.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZhTx-00045a-LM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:45:25 -0400 Received: from abrasax.taupan.ath.cx (p5DE89936.dip.t-dialin.net [93.232.153.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs", Issuer "User CA" (not verified)) by mail.dudelab.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A81228148 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:48:35 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14880.1279233570@alphaville.usa.hp.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi again. Nick Dokos schrieb: > Friedrich Delgado wrote: > > I'd appreciate if the subject line and body of those patchwork mails > > could be a little more informative, since I can't really be bothered > > to click on those urls in order to figure out what's going on. > I'm really trying to be nice here and not be an officious bastard, > but That's always a good start... > wouldn't it be more politic to express yourself a bit differently? It > seems to me that if I'm trying to convince somebody else to do some My intention wasn't to be condescending, just honest. > amount of work so that I don't have to do a (minuscule) amount of work > on my side, then pointing out that *I* can't be bothered does not invite > much sympathy, let alone a desire to comply with the request. ---Zitatende--- And I agree that my choice of words may not be terribly motivating. However I figured that there are a lot of readers on this mailing list whose "minuscule" amount of work in order to make some sense out of these mails will probably add up to a considerably higher effort than the amount of work needed to make those mails a bit more informative. I might be wrong about that, of course. -- Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs TauPan on Ircnet and Freenode ;)