Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 +Cc meta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OK, something I've thought of doing anyways in the past... > 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). Exactly on being conceptually simple but requiring some deeper changes to the way indexing works. I'll have to think about it a bit, but it should be doable without being too intrusive, invasive or expensive for existing users. > 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. Thanks. I'll keep that index change in mind and it should be doable if I remain alive and society doesn't collapse... > [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. Yeah, that would be part of the local tools bit I've been thinking about (user labels such as "important", "seen", "replied", "new", "ignore", ... flags).
