Try this: https://lists.apache.org/list?d...@streampipes.apache.org:dfr=2023-1-1|dto=2023-1-15:
Not sure why it didn’t work … if it doesn’t again, just select the date range on that list from 01.01.2023 to 15.01.2023 Chris Von: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> Datum: Dienstag, 1. August 2023 um 14:55 An: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org> Betreff: Re: [POLL] Should we ask Infra to change the defaults used to generate GitHub integration email subjecs? I can't tell the difference between https://lists.apache.org/list?d...@streampipes.apache.org:dfr=2023-1-9|dto=2023-1-15 and https://lists.apache.org/list?d...@streampipes.apache.org:dfr=2023-6-12|dto=2023-6-18 They both use "[PR]". What am I missing? Gary On Tue, Aug 1, 2023, 8:17 AM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Starting a new thread as the last one sort of dried up and didn’t quite > form anything actionable. > > Being subscribed to many of our mailing-lists and most recently looking > into every project, dev-lists when reviewing board reports, I have seen > many of our lists literally being rendered useless. > > Useless, because it’s almost impossible to follow these lists, as a large > percentage of the emails are: > > * Generated emails and the way they are currently generated makes it > impossible for email clients to correctly display them as threads. > * Contain so much redundant information, that the actual start of the > header that I’m interested in reading is usually not readable on mobile > phones. > * Most discussions have been moved away from the lists (notifications@, > commits@), having left over only skeletons in which every now and then a > vote is being handled. > > My proposal is to change the default settings for auto-generated GitHub > emails for all projects (not just the new ones) to be a much more condensed > version. > > With these changes, all existing lists, that haven’t manually configured > the format of the emails, instantly get readable lists again. > > Some would argue that there might be projects that could object these > changes, but I would on the other hand bet that more projects would be in > favor of such a change than not. > Those who don’t want a change, can simply go back to the old format, by > specifying it in one commit for which we can even provide a default > .asf.yaml snippet. > > Some people expressed the wish to have longer prefixes, such as “[ISSUE]”, > “[PULL-REQUEST]” or “[DISCUSSION]” however do these not add much > information to the email that “[I]”, “[PR]” and “[D]” don’t and the shorter > version allows displaying more of the subject on mobile email clients. > > Here’s an example of a project list before the changes: > > https://lists.apache.org/list?d...@streampipes.apache.org:dfr=2023-1-9|dto=2023-1-15 > Here’s an example of the same list after using the other defaults: > > https://lists.apache.org/list?d...@streampipes.apache.org:dfr=2023-6-12|dto=2023-6-18 > > Here’s an example on how even ponymail is now able to display something > happening on GitHub as a discussion you can also follow nicely via email: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/rnr9tjx9rsnqc7b5nwcf68qnp5bkr9hc > > I would propose to keep the repository as part of the templates, even if > since my PR last week was merged it’s now possible to omit that too. > > I care deeply about our projects, and I would really hate to see our core > principles being lost more and more (“If it didn’t happen on the list, it > didn’t happen”). > > You would make me really happy if I could get some general approval by you > folks here. > > > Chris > > >
