On Feb 7, 2013, at 4:01 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >> >>> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail. >>> I don't think that's useful. >>> >>> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their >>> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track >>> is better. >>> >> >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer that >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am doing >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives: >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name >> >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to? > > Don't think it's edge case, otherwise LKML won't encourage CC. The old > policy just can't scale - if we would have a even bigger community > later. > > And: > 1. Information redundancy, and not elegant. If you send out a mail, > why you cannot receive the reply address to you unless you CC > yourselves? It wouldn't happen when you send mail to a friend. > 2. Mail filter based on the email header is most efficient, not on > context. And it's not the same thing, e.g. I don't think Linus > Torvalds would care much if someone mentioned him by name in one mail > context of the mailing list, unless it's addressed to him(even so, if > he doesn't have interests, he won't care). > > --Sheng >> >> - Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> br...@apache.org >> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ >> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter >> http://twitter.com/brettporter >> >> >> >>
I am +1 on leaving the "reply-to" as the list I am -0 on the CC issue -sebastien
