Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
Didier Verna <verna(a)inf.enst.fr> writes:
> What are we supposed to do with this ? I don't even know the message
> it's referring to. How does the robot detect patches ?
Didier, what exactly do you find wrong with the message? To me it
looks clear, informative and polite. The robot was unable to find a
patch in the message, and will forward it to the human moderator who
will decide if it's really a patch or a spam (or whatever).
It doesn't contain the simplest reference to the message that produced
the error. Not even a reminder of the subject line or something. I'd find it a
bit more polite^H^H^Hfriendly to contain such a reference.
> I'm a member of this list, and I know `wonderworks', so
it's
> ok. However, I honestly think that if I were an occasionnal patch
> sender, receiving back this kind of /very friendly/ message would
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JIC, that was ironic.
> probably discourage me from contributing anymore :-/
Now I don't understand what you're talking about. Did you have a bad
day, or am I missing something really basic?
No I didn't have a bad day. I just hate anonymity. This message is
indeed very polite, but you can perfectly tell somebody to get lost with very
polite terms. To me, the sentence "if your message doesn't contain a patch, it
will be discarded" sounds like politely telling the guy that we don't give a
damn to what he says appart from diff -u. Imagine the occasional poster that
fucked up his posting, or posted by mistake as Adrian pointed out. There could
be a more friendly message instead, like "This list is for patches only. If
your message contains a bug report or general comments on xemacs, please try
xemacs-beta", but not just "You lost. Try again."
There might be a cultural difference here. Maybe it's the frogs. Maybe
it's just me. Oh well, maybe I'm having a bad day, after all :-)
--Didier