Figuring out that "r12345 - [paths...]" actually refers to an "svn commit:" doesn't seem like a hugh leap. We had this discussion right after ApacheCon. I am +1 for removing unnecessary information from the subject line like "svn commit:". As far as replies go, I am much more interested in which file(s) we are discussing than I am in the fact that it was an "svn commit:". If you really want to consolidate it but keep the same information, change it to "svn12345 - [paths...]". "svn" tells me where it came from and "12345" tells me the revision. "commit:" and "r" don't really tell me anything.
Brad >>> André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friday, January 28, 2005 5:42 AM >>> * Julian Foad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > André Malo wrote: > >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>Hmm. My thought is that the prefix "svn commit " is redundant and should > >>>>be dropped. A subject starting with "r126493 - > > > I find the prefix is especially useful, when someone replies to such > > mails to another mailinglist (like this thread). > > Ah, but do you find the current prefix "svn commit r126493 - [paths...]" more > useful than "r126493 - [paths...]"? Why? No. I find "Re: svn commit: ..." better than "Re: r12345 - ....", because I know by looking at the subject, that the mail most likely refers to a svn commit and not something else. nd
