Hi Torsten,
Torsten Wagner torsten.wag...@gmail.com writes:
Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point.
Maybe the someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to
shorten it to [Org].
I agreed this would be an improvement to use [Org].
If nobody have a strong
Thanks for all the answers and discussions.
To summarise:
I guess nobody is interest to split the list. At least no dev mentioned a
need.
Tags are good but might need some guidance to use a certain set and possibly
shorten them wherever possible.
The issue with to long tag list is not only a
Dear all,
since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased enormously.
This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to filter throw
all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The babel project is
using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating around
Torsten Wagner torsten.wag...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] since all mails
coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong indicator
already.
Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
definitely superfluous. Who has a mail
Andrew J. Korty a...@iu.edu writes:
tags seems to be:
- [babel] [1] or [Babel]
- [PATCH]
- [PATCH n/m]
- [Accepted] : means patch accepted.
- Bug:
- MobileOrg
acronym tags[2]:
[OT]
[RFC]
and so on
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2009-11/msg00212.html
[2]
Torsten Wagner torsten.wag...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use
[Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is
a strong indicator already.
At least for me, the subject appears in my mail-reading pane so I can
see the tag, but the sender that
Andrew J. Korty a...@iu.edu wrote:
Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
definitely superfluous. Who has a mail client that can't filter on
the List-Id field?
It may be superfluous for some (all?) mail clients, but it is not
supefluous for *me*. Some
