From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC] Stopping those fat "What's cooking in git.git" threads Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:30 -0700 Message-ID: <7vsku44679.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080720205125.GP10347@genesis.frugalware.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Miklos Vajna X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 20 23:08:29 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KKg8n-0002sw-Sp for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:08:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752560AbYGTVFi (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:05:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752470AbYGTVFi (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:05:38 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:47566 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752459AbYGTVFh (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:05:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86DC34086; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FD6A34083; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:05:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080720205125.GP10347@genesis.frugalware.org> (Miklos Vajna's message of "Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:51:25 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 99067994-569F-11DD-B34F-3113EBD4C077-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Miklos Vajna writes: > So here is what I thought about: What about if everyone (except Junio, > of course) would change the subject _and_ remove the In-Reply-To: header > when replying to those mails? > > If those large threads just annoys a few people and most people are > happy with the current situation then sorry for the noise. I could make "What's cooking" not a follow-up to the previous issue, or perhaps add "(volume 1.6.0, issue 28)" at the end of the Subject. But I think it is a good idea to change the subject when responding to one part of the message to say which topic your response is about. I do not know if stripping "In-reply-to" is a great idea, though. They are responses, aren't they?