From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9000 invoked from network); 10 Oct 1997 09:05:07 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 Oct 1997 09:05:07 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA18615; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:53:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Main Message-Id: <199710100854.JAA02709@taos.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: patch archive set up To: luomat+zsh+users@luomat.peak.org (Timothy J Luoma) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:54:17 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-Reply-To: <199710100113.VAA10505@luomat.peak.org> from "Timothy J Luoma" at Oct 9, 97 09:13:19 pm X-Loop: zefram@tao.co.uk X-Headers: in preparation X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wuJye1.0.lY4.NqUFq"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3578 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Timothy J Luoma wrote: >I'd suggest that descriptive Subject lines be given, so as to make the >archive more useful, such as >for example: > >PATCH: 3.0.4 Src/subst.c That's not descriptive. Anyway, a lot of patches apply to more than one version, or affect more than one file. I see nothing wrong with the current convention of putting a brief description in the Subject: line -- that is, after all, what it's there for. -zefram