Hi Junio, On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> And as you alluded to, we may need to see if we can help making it > easier to do the latter when needed. That mistakes it for "Someone Else's Problem". > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > > That's what you are buying into by having these "What's cooking" mails > > that are in no usable way connected to the original threads. > > For the above reason, I do not think this is a particularly useful > stance to take. I agree, but this is the process you chose to use. > Do you have a concrete suggestion to make these individual entries more > helpful for people who may want go back to the original thread in doing > so? In-reply-to: or References: fields of the "What's cooking" report > would not help. I often have the message IDs that made/helped me make > these individual comments in the description; they alone would not react > to mouse clicks, though. Oh gawd, not even more stuff piled onto the mail format. Please stop. > Having said that, I'd expect that individual contributors have past > messages pertaining to the smaller numbers of their own topics in flight > in their mailbox than the project wide "What's cooking" report covers, > so perhaps an affort to devise such a mechanism may result in an > over-engineering waste nobody finds useful. I dunno. I frequently find myself putting off that What's cooking mail because it simply takes too long to study. It probably tries to serve too many purposes at the same time, and thereby none. In the same vein as "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail": when it comes to project management, a dedicated tool will always beat a general-purpose mailing list. Ciao, Dscho
