From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7656B1F619 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 02:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727758AbgCOC1R (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:27:17 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:40058 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726949AbgCOC1R (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:27:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 732 invoked by uid 109); 14 Mar 2020 17:27:16 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 17:27:16 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 16019 invoked by uid 111); 14 Mar 2020 17:36:44 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:36:44 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:27:15 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Eric Wong Cc: James Ramsay , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [TOPIC 16/17] =?utf-8?B?4oCcSSB3YW50?= =?utf-8?Q?_a_reviewer=E2=80=9D?= Message-ID: <20200314172715.GA1178875@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <6DAC1E49-9CA0-4074-867E-F22CD26C9FEB@jramsay.com.au> <20200313212531.GA22502@dcvr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200313212531.GA22502@dcvr> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:25:31PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > 6. Peff: this is all possible on the mailing list. I see things that look > > interesting, and have a to do folder. If someone replies, I’ll take it off > > the list. Once a week go through all the items. I like the book club idea, > > instead of it being ad hoc, or by me, a group of a few people review the > > list in the queue. You might want to use a separate tool, like IRC, but it > > would be good to have it bring it back to the mailing list as a summary. > > Public inbox could be better, but someone needs to write it. Maybe nerd > > snipe Eric? > > What now? :o > > There's a lot of things it could be better at, but a more > concrete idea of what you want would help. short answer: searching for threads that only one person participated in The discussion here was around people finding useful things to do on the list: triaging or fixing bugs, responding to questions, etc. And I said my mechanism for doing that was to hold interesting-looking but not-yet-responded-to mails in my git-list inbox, treating it like a todo list, and then eventually: 1. I sweep through and spend time on each one. 2. I see that somebody else responded, and I drop it from my queue. 3. It ages out and I figure that it must not have been that important (I do this less individually, and more by occasionally declaring bankruptcy). That's easy for me because I use mutt, and I basically keep my own list archive anyway. But it would probably be possible to use an existing archive and just search for "threads with only one author from the last 7 days". And people could sweep through that[1]. You already allow date-based searches, so it would really just be adding the "thread has only one author" search. It's conceptually simple, but it might be hard to index (because of course it may change as messages are added to the archive, though any updates are bounded to the set of threads the new messages are in). But to be clear, I don't think you have any obligation here. I just wondered if it might be interesting enough that you would implement it for fun. :) As far as I'm concerned, if you never implemented another feature for public-inbox, what you've done already has been a great service to the community. -Peff [1] The obvious thing this lacks compared to my workflow is a way to mark threads as "seen" or "not interesting". But that implies per-user storage.