Re: New CF app deployment

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>> wrote:
>> > So in an attempt to actually move this forward in a constructive way I'm
>> > going to ignore a bunch of what happened after this email, and fork the
>> > discussion at this point.
>>
>> Thanks, and I probably owe you an apology for some of that, so, sorry
>> about that.
>>
>> I think the core of the problem here is that the old application saw
>> its goal in life as *summarizing* the thread. The idea is that people
>> would go in and add comments (which could be flagged as comment,
>> patch, or review) pointing to particularly important messages in the
>> discussion. The problem with this is that it had to be manually
>> updated, and some people didn't like that.[1] The new app attaches
>> the entire thread, which has the advantage that everything is always
>> there. The problem with that is that the unimportant stuff is there,
>> too, and there's no way to mark the important stuff so that you can
>> distinguish between that and the unimportant stuff. I think that's
>> the problem we need to solve.
>>
>
> I'd like the ability to add a comment which does not get turned into an
> email.
>

I really don't ;)

The reason I really don't like that is that this now makes it impossible to
track the review status by just reading throught he mail thread. You have
to context-switch back and forth between the app and the archives. We had
this problem in the old system every now and then where reviews were
posted entirely in the old system...

I liked to add comments which would point out some fact that was important
> to testing but which was non-obvious. Often this fact was mentioned
> somewhere in the 300 message thread, but it needs to be called out
> specifically for people interested in testing but not so interested in
> architectural debates. Obviously adding another email to a overly-long
> thread is going the wrong way when it comes to making things stand out
> better. (Also, if the comment is about a uncommitted dependency, then the
> comment can be deleted once the dependency is committed)
>

Wouldn't that actually be solved if we add this ability to create
"annotations" that would pull int he email in question? If you want to
mainly highlight/call out something specifically for that, it seems like
exactly that feature - add a short annotation and by doing so highlight a
particular email in the thread?

>
>> One thing that would probably *help* is if the list of attachments
>> mentioned the names of the files that were attached to each message
>> rather than just noting that they have some kind of attachment. If
>> people name their attachments sensibly, then you'll be able to
>> distinguish parallel-seqscan-v23.patch from
>> test-case-that-breaks-parallel-seqscan.sql, and that would be nice.
>>
>
> Yes, I was going to request that as well.
>
>
Ok, this is easy enough. There's a field missing in an API call but it
shouldn't be that hard - I'll add this to the short term todo.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/