parsecvs repository moved...

I've just found that parsecvs.git repo has moved again... to
http://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/users/keithp/repos/parsecvs.git

Used to be at
- git://git.freedesktop.org/~keithp/parsecvs
- git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/users/keithp/parsecvs

(I'm about to run a test import of Postgresql's CVS repo with it)

cheers,


martin

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:32:58PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:

 I've just found that parsecvs.git repo has moved again... to
 http://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/users/keithp/repos/parsecvs.git

It seems to be broken on there?

$ git clone http://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/users/keithp/repos/parsecvs.git
Initialized empty Git repository in /code/vcs/parsecvs/.git/
Cannot get remote repository information.
Perhaps git-update-server-info needs to be run there?

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

On 4/16/07, Robin H. Johnson [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:32:58PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:

quoted

 I've just found that parsecvs.git repo has moved again... to
 http://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/users/keithp/repos/parsecvs.git

It seems to be broken on there?

$ git clone http://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/users/keithp/repos/parsecvs.git
Initialized empty Git repository in /code/vcs/parsecvs/.git/
Cannot get remote repository information.
Perhaps git-update-server-info needs to be run there?

Oh - I managed to run an update to an existing checkout of mine - but
it's broken for cloning over http. I'm happy to publish my cloned repo
- try

 git-clone http://git.catalyst.net.nz/parsecvs.git

cheers,


martin

On 4/16/07, Robin H. Johnson [off-list ref] wrote:

Hey - your MUA settings are weird - it sets the reply-to to the person
you've replied to. That's strange, and probably not what you want.
Reply-to should be to your preferred email address.

cheers,


martin

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:39:32PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:

 On 4/16/07, Robin H. Johnson [off-list ref] wrote:

 Hey - your MUA settings are weird - it sets the reply-to to the person
 you've replied to. That's strange, and probably not what you want.
 Reply-to should be to your preferred email address.

No, it's correct in this case. I have it configured to collapse any
occurrence of my address into the list address, because I'm subscribed
to the list, and prefer to not receive duplicates.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:37:09PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:

 Oh - I managed to run an update to an existing checkout of mine - but
 it's broken for cloning over http. I'm happy to publish my cloned repo
 - try

 git-clone http://git.catalyst.net.nz/parsecvs.git

Thanks.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

On 4/16/07, Robin H. Johnson [off-list ref] wrote:

No, it's correct in this case. I have it configured to collapse any
occurrence of my address into the list address, because I'm subscribed
to the list, and prefer to not receive duplicates.

OTOH you _are_ breaking the reply / reply-all convention that most
people use and (almost) all MUAs handle correctly.

This means that I have a practical way to address you in private by
just hitting 'reply'. Most mailing-list-adept users will do that to
send you a private reply. It's pretty ackward that you are seeding the
reply-to with bogus addresses. I'd guess it'd bother me less if you
set the reply-to to /dev/null.

If you'd rather not receive duplicates, you can probably filter out
for duplicates in by message-id at your MUA/procmail.

Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member

Oh, well. And I thought reply-to flamewars were exclusive to
debian-devel. They are silly enough there.

cheers.


m

On 4/16/07, Martin Langhoff [off-list ref] wrote:

If you'd rather not receive duplicates, you can probably filter out
for duplicates in by message-id at your MUA/procmail.

Actually - it's not a "probably" but a fact of life - look for
'duplicate' in the procmail quick-start guide:

     http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/

And a quick google tells me there are similar recipes for Exim and a
few other mail-related tools.

cheers,



martin

The entirety of the subject is not worth further discussion. Beyond this
email, let's get back to the point of this list guys: Git development!
The keyword expansion flame-war is more on topic :-P

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:51:13PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:

 On 4/16/07, Robin H. Johnson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

No, it's correct in this case. I have it configured to collapse any
occurrence of my address into the list address, because I'm subscribed
to the list, and prefer to not receive duplicates.

 OTOH you _are_ breaking the reply / reply-all convention that most
 people use and (almost) all MUAs handle correctly.

I turned off Mutt's followup_to for this list now.

Simply put, MUAs have been getting it wrong for so long, that the entire
thing is a minefield. The Procmail-Tips documentation
(http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/pm-tips-body.html#replyto_header)
has perhaps one of the best summaries of it:
] The way to solve most reply problems is to encourage the responder to
] actually think about where the message needs to go, and make it easy for
] him to get the behavior he wants.
It's the entirely of do what I mean, not what I say. Is my mail a reply
or a followup? Is it brash enough that I should make sure it goes only
to the right person?

 If you'd rather not receive duplicates, you can probably filter out
 for duplicates in by message-id at your MUA/procmail.

If it weren't for broken MUAs, then yes, this would solve it. The best
implementations of this so far have been for uniques on the tuple of
(From, Message-ID, Subject[prefixes removed], Fuzzy body).

quoted

Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member

 Oh, well. And I thought reply-to flamewars were exclusive to
 debian-devel. They are silly enough there.

I'm not trying to start a flamewar, I get enough of those on gentoo-dev
already ;-).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85