[PATCH 5 of 5 perfarce] output and progress cleanups

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 11:15 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 05:51:10PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 22:37 +0100, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
> > wrote:
> > > On 02/12/2014, at 22.08, Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> > > > On 11/29/2014 06:52 AM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> > > >> # HG changeset patch
> > > >> # User Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen  <danchr at gmail.com>
> > > >> # Date 1417271360 -3600
> > > >> #      Sat Nov 29 15:29:20 2014 +0100
> > > >> # Node ID 382131969f6483bd5f2aeb84391ceb147f37f637
> > > >> # Parent  1f548aff09cd75a949bce95d88e4a6f80e449304
> > > >> output and progress cleanups
> > > >
> > > > This series looks good (a bit unsure about the last changesets that do multiple things and his therefor hard to read).
> > > >
> > > > But I've not idea about what I'm supposed to do with such patches.
> > >
> > > My understanding was that the Mercurial list was an appropriate location for discussing extensions that have no other list :) Frank replied to the introductory email — but that was suppressed by automatic filters, and so didn't get to this list.
> > >
> > > (From a bit of searching, I see Matt decided that introductory
> > > messages are so obnoxious that they should be entirely suppressed. I
> > > found no mention of this on the wiki,
> >
> > I've been discouraging them since at least early 2009. You haven't been
> > gone that long. But here's what it says on the wiki:
> >
> >         http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ContributingChanges
> >
> >         5. all relevant info is in the commit message for posterity (not
> >         a "0 of N" message)
> >
> >         ...
> >
> >         Please do not send a 0 of X summary message. Those will be
> >         deleted in the inbox of code reviewers, and never be read. It's
> >         totally fine to discuss the history and purpose of a patch in a
> >         patch description. Future archaeologists will thank you.
> >
> > >  and the rejection was extremely terse and unhelpful. I'd suggest
> > > either replacing the notice with something less rude, or — even better
> > > — dropping it all together and go back to politely reminding people
> > > that they shouldn't send such messages.)
> >
> > Tried that for years. Didn't work.
> 
> What does the rejection say? I'd rather it wasn't rude to newbies that
> just didn't read the guidelines.

Just tested, it says:

 Message rejected by filter rule match

It's the standard, non-configurable Mailman message.

I'm halfway through writing a bot to remind people very very nicely when
they should throttle their patch sending, so it'll be easy enough to add
this reminder there as well and remove the filter.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.