On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote: > 20-07-2007, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> пишет: > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote: > >> See last one? It's without context, while previous have one. And > >> this is currenty depends: or it's generated by reportbug, or pkg > >> name added by hand by developer who answered. I'm asking about > >> making all them look same. > > > > The all look the same; the only thing that debbugs adds is the > > #NNN:; every other bit is the subject of the message which was > > sent to bug NNN or affected bug NNN. > > > > Control transcripts can affect hundreds or thousands of bugs, so > > there's no way that all of the packages will ever be listed in the > > subject. > > But NNN is unique for one particular pkg,
It's actually not. There's no limit to how many packages a bug can be assigned to. > >> That's what i'm talking about. > > > > That's not reasonable either, because you're assuming a message is in > > reply to another message, when it isn't neccessarily a reply. > > > > Making it easier for people to include the appropriate References: and > > In-Reply-To: is the way forward, which will resolve most cases of this > > for actual messages. I'm willing to apply appropriate patches for > > that, but I'm not planning on faking References: or In-Reply-To: for > > the above reasons. > > If not "References" i'm will be OK with "X-Resent-References" or > whatever else. You already get the equivalent of what you're asking for by separating on Subject: #NNNN and ordering by date. > This kind of thing is much easy to implement and maintain, than all > that subscribe/unsubscribe kind of things. Heh. It's actually not; requiring every message that is sent to the BTS to parse the logfile for information on the previous messages is definetly non-trivial. Don Armstrong -- What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for someone more interesting. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
