Guys...let’s not argue like this. It gets us nowhere. -Rob
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:16 PM, Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2020-07-23 3:09 UTC+02:00, Torsten Curdt <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>>> TBH not in terms of your "you act, and I must react" argument. >>> >>> It was not an argument, but a statement of fact. >>> >> >> Well, it "must react" feels a bit loaded. > > Perhaps another (?) misunderstanding here. > The action came before the explanation, and the only possibility > was to deal synchronously (!) with the consequences. > [On some relatively old systems, it does not take 10s to delete > those hundreds of emails.] > >> And I see two possible actions here: >> >> 1. A person of another project doing a release, triggering a bot to notify >> us and even create a PR.This also results in a message to the list. >> 2. A person enabling the bot, causing a one-time "flood" of messages to the >> list. >> >> I assume you were referring to 2.? > > Yes. > >> You were outraged you had to delete those messages? > > No. > As said, this time it showed that the problem is getting > worse by the days (perhaps because most people have > efficient ways to discard those dumb messages). > >> >> Did you missed/skip the start of the thread, where I merely >>> asked what was the flood (like I don't think we've have ever >>> seen) about? >>> >> >> I did indeed miss > > So why assume ill intent? > >> that - but I am not searching the archives for reading up >> on the exact wording. > > Here you are. > I said (2nd message in this thread): > ---CUT--- > Hello. > > What's this flood of emails about? > ---CUT--- > > In the hope to get a plain explanation of what was attempted > and why. > > Just got (3rd message): > ---CUT--- > Just read them! > ---CUT--- > >> Nevertheless... >> >> >> >>> My remark came after getting a blunt reply that I should >>> read those messages (though they obviously weren't even >>> fitted to be read in a mail client) and go figure out (after the >>> fact) how to not see them. >>> >> >> Maybe the "blunt reply" is the main reason we are still writing here? > > No. The problem is factual and older. > Just the final straw... > >> In a way I hope it is that > > I hope that we somewhat converge now. > >> - and not deletion of a bunch of emails. > > I do that everyday. > But I see a (big) difference in deleting potentially useful > mails from plain redundant ones. > >> >> Care to share your experience of dealing with those hundreds >>> of bot posts? >>> >> >> Sure. I realized what it is, then I did a search/filter to select them, and >> deleted them. > > Confirming what I thought. > This time I thought that I should brought up the issue instead > of sweeping it under the rug. > >> As said before that took me probably 10s. >> I am more concerned about the time I spent contributing to this thread. > > Thanks for the contribution! > From my end, I sincerely did not expect my concern to be > negated on the premise that it is easy (in some mail clients) > to filter them out, rather than question the utility of ever > increasing the production of mails that (every)one is > immediately deleting. > >> >> Mine is that either I can get useful info out of them, or I should >>> not receive them. [Getting automatic messages, and having >>> them thrown away automatically upon reception seems like a >>> useless dissipation of heat.] >>> >> >> Oh, I find them very useful. > > But you deleted them... > >> How are they not? >> And it's not like they get sent out like that every day. > > Back to the non-issue of this one-time flood? > Issue is that there was no prior discussion. > And *everyday*, I get way more than 100 messages from > this project, probably 90% from issues@ from which less than > 10% are not redundant or trivial. > > This could be handled rather than denied. > >> The problem is that indeed some messages from "issues@" are >>> useful (otherwise I would have unsubscribed already...). >>> >> >> Well, the same goes for dependency upgrades. >> > > Perhaps. > As said in the beginning of this message and this thread, > it would have been _nice_ to _first_ post to "dev@" so that > the pros and cons are presented. > > Again, it is obvious from the contents of those emails that > the primary means to view it is _not_ in an email; hence I > deduce (perhaps hastily) that it is possible to get the pros > (get the info to those interested GH users) without the cons > (relay to "issues@"). > At least, the feature is half-baked or maybe badly configured, > i.e. all the more reason to not make bulk changes. > > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
