On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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... > > Yeah, people did that sometimes and it sucked. At the same time I see > Jeff's point: 300-email threads tend to contain a lot of dross. Could we > address it by allowing only *very short* annotations? The limiting case > would be 1-bit annotations, ie you could star the important messages in a > thread; but that might be too restrictive. >
Right - to me that's the difference between annotation (per Roberts email earlier, just "tagging" won't be enough, and I think I agree with that - but a limited length ones) and a "comment". It could be that I'm reading too much into Jeff's suggestion though - maybe that's actually what he is suggesting. The annotation would then "highlight" the email in the archives with a direct link (haven't figured out exactly how to implement that part yet but I have some ideas and I think it's going to work out well). -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
