Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123416
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1142fd03-a71a-3a6e-2cda-540c2ab5961a@php.net> <c4385a67-b86c-461d-9797-6d76b35dff8a@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c4385a67-b86c-461d-9797-6d76b35dff8a@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 16:40:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CANNiG7gx7q3aDKEW6=CgZ5yM4nbwxepGJDjfgCSasjGSNUmEVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Subject Prefixes
To: Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001eda4c061920e113"
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

--0000000000001eda4c061920e113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Unless someone is going to write out definitions for tags, including when
we should(n't) use them, I agree with Derick; they're just useless cruft. I
only added them because everyone else was doing it (lol).

Bilge

On Thu, 23 May 2024, 16:28 Rob Landers, <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:

> On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 16:50, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I've noticed that lately, people are adding a [Discussion] prefix to new
> threads to this list. That seems rather superfluous, as this is a
> *discussion* mailing list.
>
> RFCs require us to use [RFC] and [Vote] to stand out, but please let us
> proliferate additional ones.
>
> The normal subject text should be enough.
>
> This is more useful where display space (like on phones) is small, so
> the subject is more easily seen.
>
> cheers,
> Derick
>
>
> I rather like the discussion prefix. It seems to be used when people are
> considering an RFC and feeling things out.
>
> =E2=80=94 Rob
>

--0000000000001eda4c061920e113
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Unless someone is going to write out definitions for tags=
, including when we should(n&#39;t) use them, I agree with Derick; they&#39=
;re just useless cruft. I only added them because everyone else was doing i=
t (lol).<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Bilge</div></div><br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, 23=
 May 2024, 16:28 Rob Landers, &lt;rob@bottled.codes&gt; wrote:<br></div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u><div><div>On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 16:50=
, Derick Rethans wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"m_34018269=
76085518922qt"><div>Hi!<br></div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;ve noticed that =
lately, people are adding a [Discussion] prefix to new=C2=A0<br></div><div>=
threads to this list. That seems rather superfluous, as this is a=C2=A0<br>=
</div><div>*discussion* mailing list.<br></div><div><br></div><div>RFCs req=
uire us to use [RFC] and [Vote] to stand out, but please let us=C2=A0<br></=
div><div>proliferate additional ones.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The norm=
al subject text should be enough.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This is more=
 useful where display space (like on phones) is small, so=C2=A0<br></div><d=
iv>the subject is more easily seen.<br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers,<br=
></div><div>Derick<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div=
>I rather like the discussion prefix. It seems to be used when people are c=
onsidering an RFC and feeling things out.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div id=
=3D"m_3401826976085518922sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<br></div></div></block=
quote></div>

--0000000000001eda4c061920e113--