* Chris Quenelle ([email protected]) wrote: > > Glenn, I appreciate your perspective on this, and I understand that you're > speaking for yourself, as you said. I apologize if the following email > sounds like I'm beating you up. I just have a very different opinion. > Which I will now elaborate on... :-)
Understood :-) > I count 13 threads so far this month that didn't get hit by the obvious > filters. > That's plenty of traffic to justify a different alias. And it doesn't count > the replies to code review emails that people might redirect to an > interest list if one was available. It also doesn't count the regular-looking > email threads that might only want to go to the dev alias. So I know it's > an inexact science. > > There are a lot of usability issues with the package tools, and this alias > is the only way users have to participate. It needs to be more inviting > if you want more people to participate. Right, but if the people who want to participate want to actually have a chance at influencing anything then they need to be talking to the developers. And they're found on this list. You're advocating creating a pkg-users alias that the developers of IPS will need to join if you're going to get any useful information out of that list at this point of IPS's stage of development. Outside of team IPS, there isn't a lot of latent knowledge/experience to draw from (in my subjective opinion watching traffic on pkg-discuss). Not to mention that you haven't addressed the other issues I raised about cross-posting between the two lists (and the aggravation that ensues) and requiring users to find the lists and figure out which list they're really interested in. There's something to be said for one-stop-shopping imo. Now, once IPS is further along (integrated into a consolidation for instance and more feature full/complete) creating a pkg-users alias somewhere is probably a perfectly fine idea. At that point, the underlying code won't be changing every day and likely a separation of the people 'using the code' vs 'writing the code' will be much farther along than it is today. Until then, another list is just 'noise' imo. > I just spent 30 minutes trying to create the necessary filters in Thunderbird, > and I couldn't figure it out. And I'm not a Thunderbird newbie. > You're off your rocker if you think I'm going to delete them one thread > at a time. I have a day job. Not to sound flippant (honestly), but then you need a better tool. I process on the average of several hundred emails across 50+ mailboxes each and every day. Deleting threads one at a time that I don't care about takes no effort whatsoever (as I mentioned). I absolutely wouldn't be able to process the mail volume I have using any other tool that didn't offer the same capabilities as the one I'm using. I'm not special in any way as far as processing mail, I just use a more effective tool (at least for what I need). Creating filters won't help since there aren't any standard ways of determining what a putback message is or what a webrev request looks like (not to mention any threads they generate). That just leaves finding a tool that allows you to process mail you're not interested in quickly and efficiently. I know people have gotten Thunderbird to do that using the Nostalgy plugin and setting up threaded view of mailboxes. At least that's what they tell me, ymmv. Anyway, bottom line is it won't bother me one bit really if another list was created. I'll likely subscribe to it and process it along with all the rest. Apart from the inevitable annoyance of having topics discussed off-topic on one list or the other and cross posts and what have you it won't affect me in the slightest. However, in my opinion I don't see a problem and thus don't see the need for a solution. Cheers, -- Glenn _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
