From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Suggestion for mailing lists... split [PATCH]-es into own list Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:07:23 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Thomas Harning Jr." X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 11 18:08:04 2007 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 1Ig0Zl-0003Wx-Gj for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:07:53 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753486AbXJKQHo (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:07:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752559AbXJKQHo (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:07:44 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49755 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752331AbXJKQHn (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:07:43 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2007 16:07:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 11 Oct 2007 18:07:42 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/FHtsgBfnFqmVShBMXcVEWeph6KoA+kS9r0bCTxJ uESf7NOB0OoTSD X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Thomas Harning Jr. wrote: > I use gmail as my mail client and it doesn't grok 'PATCH' filters > (primarily the case of the word). That's just another bug in gmail. > Are there any of you using Gmail that has managed to get around this > issue....? We did not even find a way to post patches via gmail's web interface, not without severely damaging the patches. So I guess no, most of us avoid the web interface (unless absolutely necessary, in which case we resort to the less than brilliant solution to attach the patches). > Perhaps we should have a separate mailing list for patches vs > discussion. I, for one, am totally opposed to this split. All too often valuable _user_ discussions turn into _technical_ discussions, and thence into a throwing back and forth patches. Ciao, Dscho