Re: bug-coreutils list etiquette [was: Apparently irrational behaviour in sort]

[The Wanderer]

Eric Blake wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> According to The Wanderer on 12/6/2005 11:26 AM:
>
> > Actually, I'm looking at sort, not at rm
>
> Sorry about that - I've been mixing threads in my mind.

No worries.

> > - and I'd already discovered the usage() function in the
> > Debian-packaged copy of the source, I just hadn't worked out where
> > to go from that. (By "harder", I was referring to formatting and
> > the like, which have to be handled manually in source but can be
> > mostly left to themselves - since it's reformatted at display time
> > anyway - in a man page.)
>
> What's so difficult about adding to the --help output in such a way
> that 'sort --help' is readable?  About the only formatting you have
> to worry about is inserting enough spaces at the start of new text
> lines - there are no cryptic nroff formatting codes.  Once you do
> that, then help2man takes care of formatting it for display by man.

True enough. I didn't say it was *hard*, just harder (since, in the
limited experience I've had with editing man pages directly, all that is
required is to make sure new sentences start on new lines).

> > Which appears to require actually compiling the whole of
> > coreutils... which will inevitably come with the temptation to
> > install the whole shaboozle once it's done, which would be a bad
> > idea. Oh, well... compiling now...
>
> What's so bad about that?  I do it all the time.

Compiling any remotely significant project takes a fair amount of time,
and it seems at best a waste to do all of that extra processing just for
the purpose of testing one change in one non-functional part of one
file. (Fortunate that I did it, since I'd managed to miss something
important... but still, it would have been nice not to need to compile
everything else for the purpose.)

Now that my memory's been jogged, I'll send a patch shortly.

> > However, if there was a copy sent to me offlist *and* one sent to
> > me via the list (which should be rare), I do want to receive both -
> > it's just that I want to be able to tell, for filtering purposes,
> > which is which.
>
> Most list members hit reply-to-all, and if you didn't set Reply-to:
> in your original post, it means that they will end up sending a
> message directly to you as well as one through the list.  In that
> case, the way to tell between them is by filtering on list-inserted
> headers.

Which I didn't think I could do (see below).

> > If my mail client provided the capability to filter on those
> > headers, I'd probably already be doing so. Unfortunately, and
> > somewhat to my disappointment, Mozilla appears to be erring more on
> > the "don't let them configure things which might confuse them"
> > side... and unlike with browser preferences, there isn't even a
> > less user-friendly interface to do it anyway.
>
> I use Mozilla too (hit Ctrl-u to see the full source of this email).

I knew about that part, at least.

> Under tools, message filters, particular filter, there is a
> customize... option in the drop-down for headers to filter on; in
> that customize box you can add List-Post or X-Savane-Project or
> X-BeenThere or any other header that you happen to notice that
> appears in the list copy but not in the original copy of an email.

Yeah... I had specifically looked at that menu before writing, and had
somehow failed to notice that entry. I inadvertently sent a reply to
Brian Dessent's message offlist, instead of onlist (another issue with
absence of Reply-To: but a less critical one in some ways), and in the
resulting discussion he pointed the same thing out to me.

> Now, my argument was that this whole email exchange should have been
> public, so that it could be archived for anyone else who wanted to
> search the web to see the list etiquette in use on the bug-coreutils
> mailing list.  But I resisted, and have kept it private, since you
> decided it was worth replying to me instead of the list.  So, I'm
> purposefully setting the Reply-to: field in case you have anything
> further to add.  But normally I don't pay too much attention to
> people who email me instead of the list.

...would you believe, I hadn't even noticed that the reply I sent hadn't
gone to the list? As I said, another problem with the absence of
Reply-To. (Not that I plan to pursue the argument any further.)

Thanks for setting the header correctly to fix my mistake.

--
      The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.