Re: [Pan-devel] Patch to restore "Followup and Reply" and "Go/Top of Thread"

[Duncan]

On Mon 18 Aug 2003 15:26, Torstein Sunde posted as excerpted below:
> Charles Kerr wrote:
> > (1) I don't like the Message-ID filter because nobody will use it.
> >     It only makes sense in the context of "watch subthread" and
> >     "ignore subthread", so I'd rather make that context explicit by
> >     adding those two buttons to the article menu instead.
>
> I agree that watch/ignore subthread would substitute that filter in
> most cases, but in some cases a _part_ of the message-ID can identify
> an individual using different identities.

I was just going to make that point myself.  I've already been in one case 
where I was in desperate need of SOME way to filter on something besides what 
PAN has available.  There was a deliberate nym shifter/abuser targeting one 
of my regular groups at the time as what turned out to be part of a meow 
brigade attack.  The filtering tools PAN had at its disposal, for subject, 
lines, author, etc. were simply NOT CUTTING IT!!  However, there were several 
headers that were consistent enough that I could have filtered on them, if 
PAN had that ability.  I don't recall whether MsgID was one of them, but I'm 
certainly in favor of adding it, as well as non-overview header and body 
filters.  Last time it came up, the answer was someday, but not in the 
immediate future as it's simply not a priority to add non-overview available 
data filters.  I can live with that, if necessary, and it seems necessary, 
but MsgID, being an overview available data, should not be denied as a tool 
that might help in situations such as a meow brigade attack.  All IMO of 
course.

OTOH, Torstein, IMO, you need to get yourself a copy of "The Cathedral and the 
Bazaar" and the related essays ("Homesteading the Noosphere", etc), and read 
them.  You broke several rules of open source developer etiquette here, and 
Charles rightly reacted as if he'd been seriously insulted, which he was, 
even if you didn't realize that's what you were doing.  Posting the patches 
for discussion was fine.  As you mentioned, that's what the list is for.  
However, just up and announcing you were going to include them in your RPMs 
without running them by the group for discussion first is nearly as bad as 
proposing a fork without running it by the current authors.  Someone doing 
the official packaging for a distrib might get away with it, altho even then 
it's far better to at least let the lead developer know what's going on, and 
see what they say, but otherwise, it's basically saying you don't value his 
opinion enough to at least run it by him first, rather than simply announcing 
it as a done deal.  Charles was rightly insulted, as I expect you would have 
been as well in a similar situation.  Don't blame him for acting accordingly.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin