On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Andrew Gierth > <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: >> There's a fairly serious readability problem when someone has posted a >> patch as a subthread of some more general discussion. For example, look >> at the "adaptive ndistinct estimator" patch: it's not obvious which >> attachment is the actual patch, and whether the latest email has >> anything to do with the patch is entirely arbitrary. > > I think that the inability to put each message in context, with > "metadata" comments associated with individual messages is a serious > regression in functionality. I hope it is fixed soon. I raised this > issue at the earliest opportunity, when Magnus privately sought > feedback early last year.
Yes, and the agreement after that feedback was to try it out and then figure out what changes were needed? As about half the feedback said it was better without and half said it was better with.
I agree. Starting a new email thread for each patch version is, IMHO, a complete non-starter. It's 100% contrary to what has generally been advocated as best-practice up until now, and it is basically saying we should alter our workflow because the tool can't cope with the one we've got. The whole point of having home-grown tools for this stuff is that they're supposed to work with the way we already like to do things instead of forcing us to work in new ways.
Why would you create a new thread for a new *version* of a patch? The whole *point* of the system is that you shouldn't do that, yes, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that you should do that from?
I though the issue currently discussed was when posted a *different* patch on the same thread, or that this required the first patch in a thread that used to be about something that was not a patch.
