[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: subject line

Yukihiro Matsumoto

9/2/2007 11:25:00 PM

Hi,

In message "Re: subject line"
on Mon, 3 Sep 2007 07:48:25 +0900, "Devi Web Development" <devi.webmaster@gmail.com> writes:

|I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
|[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
|fairly common practice on listserves.

It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
change.

matz.
12 Answers

Phillip Gawlowski

9/2/2007 11:42:00 PM

0



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:25 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: subject line
>
>
> It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
> English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
> discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
> But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
> change.

I'm for it. It largely irritates me if there is no "tag" in the subject
line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my messages.

--
Phillip Gawlowski

Chad Perrin

9/3/2007 6:13:00 PM

0

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:33AM +0900, Phil wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:25 AM
> > To: ruby-talk ML
> > Subject: Re: subject line
> >
> >
> > It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
> > English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
> > discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
> > But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
> > change.
>
> I'm for it. It largely irritates me if there is no "tag" in the subject
> line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my messages.

Ditto, a lot.

In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-TALK] to
the subject line on the mailing list.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."

James Gray

9/3/2007 6:23:00 PM

0

On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:33AM +0900, Phil wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:25 AM
>>> To: ruby-talk ML
>>> Subject: Re: subject line
>>>
>>>
>>> It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
>>> English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
>>> discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
>>> But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
>>> change.
>>
>> I'm for it. It largely irritates me if there is no "tag" in the
>> subject
>> line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my
>> messages.
>
> Ditto, a lot.
>
> In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-
> TALK] to
> the subject line on the mailing list.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages
use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to
reference old posts.

I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add
something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right,
hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many
have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.

James Edward Gray II

Bill Kelly

9/3/2007 6:36:00 PM

0

From: "James Edward Gray II" <james@grayproductions.net>
>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>> In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-
>> TALK] to
>> the subject line on the mailing list.
>
> I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages
> use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to
> reference old posts.
>
> I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add
> something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right,
> hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many
> have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.

D'oh! :)

While I wouldn't mind a [RUBY-TALK] prefix, the old id numbers
in the subject, while convenient, thwarted my ability to
sort-by-subject. (Note: The message id is still contained in
the header. I presume you were referring to the one in the
subject specifically.)

Of the 24 software development related mailing lists I subscribe
to, most have the [whatever-list] subject prefix. I don't really
care either way, as I filter by To: or Cc: anyway.

But I would NOT like to bring back the old ruby-talk id's in the
subject. (Maybe if I didn't use Outlook Express I could sort
by thread instead of sort by subject. But currently, sort by
subject is all I've got.)


Regards,

Bill

Chad Perrin

9/3/2007 6:36:00 PM

0

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:23:02AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:33AM +0900, Phil wrote:
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
> >>>
> >>>It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
> >>>English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
> >>>discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
> >>>But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
> >>>change.
> >>
> >>I'm for it. It largely irritates me if there is no "tag" in the
> >>subject
> >>line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my
> >>messages.
> >
> >Ditto, a lot.
> >
> >In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-
> >TALK] to
> >the subject line on the mailing list.
>
> I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages
> use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to
> reference old posts.
>
> I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add
> something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right,
> hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many
> have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.

A message ID number would be similarly clearly identifying for me, as no
other lists to which I'm currently subscribed provide an ID number in the
subject line -- so, from where I'm sitting, it'd achieve much the same
thing (in addition to giving us easier archive searching). So -- fine,
that works too.

I find it simply mind-boggling that people are so upset about a few
characters being "lost" for subject lines. How often do you send emails
with 70+ character length subject lines? How often do you feel dumb for
having done so?

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
McCloctnick the Lucid: "The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your
time waving your hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do."

Chad Perrin

9/3/2007 6:40:00 PM

0

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:35:50AM +0900, Bill Kelly wrote:
> From: "James Edward Gray II" <james@grayproductions.net>
> >
> >On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >>In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-
> >>TALK] to
> >>the subject line on the mailing list.
> >
> >I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages
> >use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to
> >reference old posts.
> >
> >I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add
> >something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right,
> >hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many
> >have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.
>
> D'oh! :)
>
> While I wouldn't mind a [RUBY-TALK] prefix, the old id numbers
> in the subject, while convenient, thwarted my ability to
> sort-by-subject. (Note: The message id is still contained in
> the header. I presume you were referring to the one in the
> subject specifically.)

I hadn't thought of that. It's a very good point.

Okay, let's stick with advocating for something like [RUBY-TALK] or
[RUBY] -- or even [RT] -- in the subject line.

If someone complains about four characters, I may have to have a good
laugh before I can respond.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Kent Beck: "I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java. I
just didn't know it would be called Ruby."

Joel VanderWerf

9/3/2007 6:46:00 PM

0

James Edward Gray II wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages
> use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to
> reference old posts.

It's still in the header. Your post has this one:

X-Mail-Count: 267381

That message can be linked to like this:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-t...

If you're using konqueror, you can set it up (or was it a default?) so
that typing "ruby-talk:267381" in the location bar opens that page. Some
people got in the habit of using that notation to reference ruby-talk
posts, but it doesn't seem to be used much any more.

--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407

Nobuyoshi Nakada

9/4/2007 2:37:00 AM

0

Hi,

At Tue, 4 Sep 2007 03:45:48 +0900,
Joel VanderWerf wrote in [ruby-talk:267393]:
> If you're using konqueror, you can set it up (or was it a default?) so
> that typing "ruby-talk:267381" in the location bar opens that page. Some
> people got in the habit of using that notation to reference ruby-talk
> posts, but it doesn't seem to be used much any more.

You can see tons of them in the ChangeLog file.

--
Nobu Nakada

Joel VanderWerf

9/4/2007 4:56:00 PM

0

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Tue, 4 Sep 2007 03:45:48 +0900,
> Joel VanderWerf wrote in [ruby-talk:267393]:
>> If you're using konqueror, you can set it up (or was it a default?) so
>> that typing "ruby-talk:267381" in the location bar opens that page. Some
>> people got in the habit of using that notation to reference ruby-talk
>> posts, but it doesn't seem to be used much any more.
>
> You can see tons of them in the ChangeLog file.

True. And you are one poster who does use "ruby-talk:NNNN" extensively
on the list. :)

--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407

Bill Kelly

9/5/2007 3:04:00 AM

0


From: "Bill Kelly" <billk@cts.com>
>
>> I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add
>> something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right,
>> hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many
>> have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.
>
> D'oh! :)
>
> While I wouldn't mind a [RUBY-TALK] prefix, the old id numbers
> in the subject, while convenient, thwarted my ability to
> sort-by-subject. (Note: The message id is still contained in
> the header. I presume you were referring to the one in the
> subject specifically.)

BTW, to clarify: I wouldn't want to hold back progress just
because my MUA sucks. If enough people find the message-count-
in-the-subject useful, i'd concede the sort-by-subject breakage
is my problem for using an MUA that can't do proper threading.
(Something I *could* change.)

On a related note, was wondering if it would work to append the
message-count ID to the _end_ of the subject? Or would that get
problematic on all the Re:'s ? (I guess this also comes back to
information that might need to be stripped between the usenet
and forums gateways, so.....)


Regards,

Bill