On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I was replying directly to Manuel's comment "I'm wondering > whether we'll really get the benefit if we don't go all the way.", not > on the patch per se. > > btw, Manuel, it seems like the comments are getting duplicated, any > idea why that's happening?
Yes, and I have already filed multiple bugs upstream. There are 2 different features we want here: 1. don't duplicate handling of incoming emails (phab gets the direct reply, and the reply via cfe-commits) 2. don't send the notifications on an action to people who already are on the to: or cc: list of an incoming action email. Those 2 combined will get rid of all the duplication you see... Cheers, /Manuel > > --Sean Silva > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote: >> You either have not read/understood my last comment/commit message or I >> don't understand what you mean. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Sean Silva >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If it's not completely consistent, then you lose the ability to say, >>> in one sentence "the correspondence is X", which still means you have >>> to go back to the docs to look up the correspondence ("is this one of >>> the ones that isn't named consistently?"). >>> >>> I think that it is a case of "premature optimization" to not go all >>> the way. Why not "go all the way" and then scale back later if it gets >>> to be a pain to write or another issue is found? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> --Sean Silva >>> >>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D21 >> >> _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
