On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:49 AM Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstan...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:35:09PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > > I understand the reasoning, but I'm not sure we should be trying too hard > > > to > > > make public-inbox a patch tracking platform. What makes lei great is > > > ability > > > to automatically find and retrieve entire threads -- I feel like we should > > > leave series tracking to other platforms that already exist (patchwork, > > > patchew, etc).
patch tracking platforms might want to use public-inbox to get the patches in the first place. > > > > I was thinking more along the lines of readers just trying to > > find trying to find non-patch discussions. I do this time to time to find things I miss. Since I have patch tracking, I don't miss patches. > Ah. I think here is enough to just say "s:* AND NOT s:PATCH" without > introducing additional xapian indexing parameters. Though, perhaps the web > interface can also gain a "collapse threads" view? There's also [RFC 1/N], [PATCHv5], or just [vN], so: "s:* AND NOT (s:PATCH OR s:RFC OR s:v1 OR s:v2 OR s:v3...)" But when someone does "[RFC] Things I want to discuss" or "blah blah patch blah blah" it won't work. It's fragile and inexact. We already have find certain patches with dfn:, why not find all patches? Rob
