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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B91D1F5AE for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233614AbhD2Ma1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 08:30:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42002 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230148AbhD2Ma1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 08:30:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3B11C06138B for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 05:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id n25so6226069edr.5 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 05:29:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XSjctXF1rN7HvpATfVppChK2dsvq1TpO7CbgLtEHheQ=; b=kjr384zRJazZCWP6QBKMkT2Uw3JFstyc4qqIBmimJmrYxkk+kdhK1IgsJVA8ivRx9c Bm6GuV8HcK58A3nEKyxqPIsWXEt+cZDXIT9nxOEQ24wnxzyFhnobQZsqeN1Srxic7skh X4d+rMqGj5wpsMM0dGmp5CYBVDATzKqtZbL28iq+5ztt2uMOXXRz4Vayu+kd5VvdxGIO 7+Qr86sng0e60Fkcz7ei8oTw/GTniNY9zvPPE5ETM6RsB9PlhtkBCaCKbJfJaj4dEYWp QzJOkZGH/eGgsnVONCSatJ/q/yvfa+Hpu9/rs9EznESW7fqTbIKDfUDZqt7+5EJ1XMj1 3HAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XSjctXF1rN7HvpATfVppChK2dsvq1TpO7CbgLtEHheQ=; b=Oyqlx9TpNiYVdh+Tp56vBGjTDXGrop5QBjxlkyZ55y2ld+hsQRR8QaGLChe+qrMAi2 99G0bivAkasCufrvlqN2jp8XVQOgBvQVtpMvsE9fmTIpJQoT4zF2qyox1Md7jjDKNCnv AD+bxx2iXpM4iocXs8Y0vG60G+dTprNQuACby3PfoiSftsJV690m4EkfRNqEdwEFGLjC TmYbBp1JKaeOaCLbDr2smXSinKZjFStLNxJ1TADcUPLwxoxPpc63R1tzQwdMF2fa5f7C iMBetTNJyR0/cxnVf/HZPF/hUy/iSDVjxH4fG+q8/zRkSWKVsj8iTomvYJJoqkfYCeoc HY1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rCTxvx6EtgJqO5MCLjQG1iIeKuDaBjDoPKbQ7IJf6udUS6q6A +5dhKws8yKvbAUIc1+jUe5E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCwpHdCr3tflMurxmEcB4ar1ONvXtCLzupTlLMF2LzMkaiSCWrWaoJj2cfohJMUx06B2JsdQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:bec7:: with SMTP id e7mr18104329edk.295.1619699379467; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 05:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (j57224.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.57.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x9sm2276281edv.22.2021.04.29.05.29.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 05:29:39 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Derrick Stolee , git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , Patrick Steinhardt Subject: Re: Nesting topics within other threads Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:14:52 +0200 References: <87k0omzv3h.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <1ecb3727-106f-3d04-976a-36aa03a61caf@gmail.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.5.12 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <8735v9z32l.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 29 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee writes: > >> On 4/28/2021 12:26 PM, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: >>> Simplify the setup code in repo-settings.c in various ways, making the >>> code shorter, easier to read, and requiring fewer hacks to do the same >>> thing as it did before: >> >> This patch is interesting, and I'll review it when I have some more >> time. Probably tomorrow. >> >> But I thought that I would point out that this pattern of adding a >> patch within the thread of a larger series makes it very difficult >> to separate the two. I use an email client that groups messages by >> thread in order to help parse meaningful discussion from the list >> which otherwise looks like a fire hose of noise. Now, this patch is >> linked to the FS Monitor thread and feedback to either will trigger >> the thread as having unread messages. >> >> I find it very difficult to track multiple patch series that are >> being juggled in the same thread. It is mentally taxing enough that >> I have avoided reviewing code presented this way to save myself the >> effort of tracking which patches go with what topic in what order. > > I do find it distracting to have a full "ah, I just thought of > something while discussing this unrelated series" patch fairly > irritating for the same reason. It however is unavoidable human > nature that we come up with ideas while thinking about something not > necessarily related. So it largely is a presentation issue. > > I really appreciate the way some people (Peff is a stellar example, > but there are others who are as good at this) handle these tangents, > where the message sent to an existing thread is limited to only give > an outline of the idea (possibly with "something like this?" patch > for illustration) and then they quickly get out of the way of the > discussion by starting a separate thread, while back-referencing "So > here is a proper patch based on the idea I interjected in the > discussion of that other topic." And the discussion on the tangent > will be done on its own thread. In RFC 822 terms. Are you talking about the In-Reply-To[1] or References[2] headers, or both/neither? I'm happy to go along with whatever the convention is, but as noted think it's valuable to come to some explicit decision to document the convention. Threading isn't a concept that exists in E-Mail protocols per-se. Just In-Reply-To and References. The References header can reference N messages most would think about as a separate "thread", and "thread" is ultimately some fuzzy MUA-specific concept on top of these (and others). E.g. in my client right now I'm looking at just 4 messages in this "thread", it doesn't descend down the whole In-Reply-To, others would act differently. Some (such as GMail) have their own ad-hoc concept of "thread" separate from anything in RFCs (which includes some fuzzy group-by-subject). In GMail's web UI everything as of my "upthread" is presented as its own thread. The ML read as it happens, but it's also a collectively maintained datastructure. It seems to me to be better to veer on the side of using standard fields for their intended purpose for archiving / future use. I.e. making "a reference" universally machine-readable, as opposed to a lore.kernel.org link, or a free-form "in a recent thread" blurb. ML Archive Formats Matter[3] :) But yes, maybe MUAs in the wild these days mostly render things one way or another, so catering to them would be a good trade-off. I'm writing this from within an Emacs MUA, so I don't have much of a feel for common MUA conventions these days. I'm prodding to see if we can define the problem exactly, because e.g. maybe "References: [actual ]" is something that would achieve both aims, i.e. make the references machine-readable, but break up threading in common in-the-wild clients. We could then patch format-patch etc. to support such "detached" threading. 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822#section-4.6.2 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822#section-4.6.3 3. https://keithp.com/blogs/Repository_Formats_Matter/