After playing with a test maildir, I'm less convinced of the ease of use
of that setup. It takes some config abuse of my mail client of choice
(mutt) to get it to not send messages and instead just store in the
local dir.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:25:33AM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:26:45PM +0100, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> > Maildir is a bit overkill in my opinion, just look at naming convention
> > [1]. If you want to use "file per message" format, MH provides simpler
> > solution (name of file is just a ID number e.g. 1, 2, 15 and so on).
>
> really? that's your big objection? the fucking *filename*? you want
> to use an alternative, less-widely-supported alternative because of
> the *filenames*?
>
> > It could work nicely with MH mail format. Just delete redundant
> > message stored as file and push to repository. Edit content/header of
> > first message and you're done.
>
> anything you have to say in support of mh also applies to maildir,
> except for maybe stuff about the color of the shed
>
> > Otherwise you'll get 20 or so lines for header just to accompany few
> > words long body e.g. "Check [xxxxxx] revision and let me know if that
> > fixed bug for you".
>
> Your MUA should be able to hide headers you don't care about (even if
> your MUA is "grep -v")
>
> > The problem is that it is easier to answer question "How issue tracker
> > should not look like" than other way around. Maybe there is a better
> > way to write suckless issue tracker than current proposals.
>
> Anselm and I have apparently independently arrived at similar goals for
> a project like this. Everyone has a different idea of a 'good' bug
> tracker, and you can basically gauge their experience based on how much
> stupid shit they want to cram into it. If they want more data than id,
> status, and maybe project, they're just naive.
>
--
--hank
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Fri Jan 20 2012 - 19:14:15 CET