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.apotheon.org ]
Kent Beck: "I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.  I
just didn't know it would be called Ruby."