You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2002/02/20 21:07:04 UTC
use reply-to? (was: conflicts, history, and the Principle Of Least Surprise)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 12:56:36PM -0800, Sean Russell wrote:
> <sigh> I *really* wish the Subversion list would set the Reply-To: header
> back to the list. Which is more common: replying only to the person, or
> replying to the list?
"Deal with it"
I'm sure we've all seen the various "considered harmful" documents, so I
won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say, that the prevailing opinion [of
those in charge of the list :-)] take the side of Reply-to munging as being
harmful.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
[OT] Re: use reply-to?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:31:07PM -0800, Sean Russell wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2002 01:07 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > I'm sure we've all seen the various "considered harmful" documents, so I
> > won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say, that the prevailing opinion [of
>
> There's a longish message by Karl waaaay back in 2000, which points to the
> Unicom document, which I could hack apart, but which I'll simply refute with:
You can also refer to this document:
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
That is a long, cogent reponse to the unicom document.
> "Make the common case simple, and the incommon case possible."
>
> The anti-munging league violates this principle, which is the primary reason
> why the rest of the world hates computer programmers. The arguments in
> support of the other principles (PoLS, etc) are pretty weak, and easily
> refuted. I'll be happy to go one-on-one, off-list, with anybody who
> disagrees.
hehe... your statement is valid, but you must first show that not-munging is
making the common case not-simple.
In my Mutt mailer, I always use group-reply (bound to 'r'; although I should
probably use list-reply more often). The group-reply does the right thing
for individual mail, and for list mail. When I want to respond to a single
person, I use the standard reply (bound to alt-r).
In Outlook, I hit the Reply All button (or ctrl-shift-r), or the Reply
button (or ctrl-r).
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: use reply-to? (was: conflicts, history, and the Principle Of Least Surprise)
Posted by Sean Russell <se...@germane-software.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 20 February 2002 01:07 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
> "Deal with it"
I do, but poorly.
> I'm sure we've all seen the various "considered harmful" documents, so I
> won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say, that the prevailing opinion [of
There's a longish message by Karl waaaay back in 2000, which points to the
Unicom document, which I could hack apart, but which I'll simply refute with:
"Make the common case simple, and the incommon case possible."
The anti-munging league violates this principle, which is the primary reason
why the rest of the world hates computer programmers. The arguments in
support of the other principles (PoLS, etc) are pretty weak, and easily
refuted. I'll be happy to go one-on-one, off-list, with anybody who
disagrees.
In any case, this isn't my list, it's OT, and I've said my piece -- I'll go
away now.
> those in charge of the list :-)] take the side of Reply-to munging as being
> harmful.
That is their prerogitive.
- --
|.. "A scientist is one who finds interest in the kinetic energy of
<|> Jell-O moving at ridiculous velocities...an engineer is one who can
/|\ find a real-life application for such silliness."
/| -- anon
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8dDG7P0KxygnleI8RAsSAAJ4iGFxlWDOdhacS+2rV0oscWdtgXwCfU4+p
TCukFZx37PIl4RbK3vioqSg=
=0NY9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org