[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Orgmode] should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
From: |
Giovanni Ridolfi |
Subject: |
Re: [Orgmode] should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:00:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (windows-nt) |
"Andrew J. Korty" <address@hidden> writes:
tags seems to be:
- [babel] [1] or [Babel]
- [PATCH]
- [PATCH n/m]
- [Accepted] : means "patch accepted".
- Bug:
- MobileOrg
acronym tags[2]:
[OT]
[RFC]
and so on
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2009-11/msg00212.html
[2] http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/
> Torsten Wagner <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] since all mails
>> coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong indicator
>> already.
>
> Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
> definitely superfluous. Who has a mail client that can't filter on
> the List-Id field?
Come on! This is a standard for GNU project mailing lists:
[gnugo-devel] Gnugo and CGoban [3]
[coreutils] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.7.66-561f8 [4]
I think it will never change.
cheers,
Giovanni
[3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnugo-devel/2010-12/index.html
[4] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2010-12/index.html
- [Orgmode] should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?, Torsten Wagner, 2010/12/17
- Re: [Orgmode] should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?, Andrew J. Korty, 2010/12/17
- Re: [Orgmode] should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?, Nick Dokos, 2010/12/17
- [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?, William Gardella, 2010/12/17
- [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?, William Gardella, 2010/12/17
- Re: [Orgmode] should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?, Torsten Wagner, 2010/12/18