On 18 November 2010 22:38, Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]> wrote: > Stef wrote in reply to: >>On Nov 18, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote: >>>That doesn't help with the web interface; >>?? > As I said, I often browse > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/2010-November/ > >>>But you just get a bad summary from squeak-source I have to click on the >>>link all the time. > But then you at least get to see the whole discussion instead of one line. > >> - Filtering doesn't work with digests; >>>I do not understand > > The mailing list has a digest function. Most email clients do not know how to > filter them. > >> - The subject is not good and the content is not good for a mailing list; >>>Why >>>Bugs are our concerns > > I fully agree that bugs are our concern, and that it is important to make > activity visible. I also understand and share your frustration that bug > reports are badly read and written. I just think that this works > contra-productive. > - the subject of a feed message is bad: it is just the issue number > and the issue title, instead of adding what happened with the issue. > - the content of a feed message is bad: the context is missing. > i think its because you turned it on just recently. For new issues, all messages will probably be gathered into a single thread by mailing client, so by opening it, everyone could be able to read a whole issue from very starting, without a need to visit an issue tracker. (btw, to test that, create a new issue)
>> - It reduces the searchability/usability of the mailing list archives; >>>Why? >>>I want to look for bug discussions there too and not using a bad google >>>search engine. > > I think the problem most potential contributors have is one of too much > information, > not too little. Giving them more, in a badly prepared format, is unlikely to > help. > > Stephan > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
