Re: parsecvs repository moved...

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