Re: Adjustments to our work mode - please read

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 06 October 2015 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83041ACE05 for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SekzRd4_BHSU for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91EA81ACE08 for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZjUx7-0003Jk-FR for; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:18:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:18:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZjUx4-0003J3-M0 for; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:18:54 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZjUx3-0005uS-5j for; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:18:54 +0000
Received: by qgt47 with SMTP id 47so178921399qgt.2 for <>; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Al6kilHhTrmVaR4FdiX1j3G/gQthBSPxAWvFmBxYB2o=; b=g7UcEtc9wJUJaqU7uz78NVHnNs4If1Y5MyFeT3wrj7HMu8QSrTiFjoY5iaYHhJi8j7 HphyO55arxHcL4KC48IlezSVmisC5SHdIX4fsL7z9fO/X6Cod5zyxAMZIw2QWeM0pe7w hbv6UmN/JR2dTMH8eBdVoiY/yOole7EggAtMQGbhFsFfXeXFdMvFR6DxgM4bjP99vvBI n/d8votoAVFoG2VgM1gYXUUkw1MNm1xss5ODdbm8l6VtwctJrBnpuLlFJ1462McKSuHc H41PcXxuWbX5/tHijlghtJDWt1jgrBflHEUMAs7FpTFJYNEkhERl6rQszX0d7S162GNL v9yg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id o79mr46231805qge.19.1444148307195; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:18:27 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: Brian Smith <>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <>, HTTP Working Group <>, Barry Leiba <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113a91c8da7d7b052171faf5"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.221, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1ZjUx3-0005uS-5j 446de2f1e9eb7640bd5eae2715bd43f9
Subject: Re: Adjustments to our work mode - please read
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/30333
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Brian Smith <> wrote:

> - Provide a separate, announce-only mailing list that is subscribed to
>> every issue change, for those who do not want to use a github account to
>> receive notifications. See: <
> Note that GitHub comments can be edited and deleted after the fact, so it
> is very important that the http-issues list be a reliable archive of all
> the communication.
​Brian's comment caused me to go look at the archive, which is found here:

There is a bit of a problem using the new mailing list archive system with
the current method. As it stands, the mailing list archive truncates the
subject of the email after a certain point (apparently no matter what the
width of the window it won't go beyond a certain number of characters).
Because the issue numbers come at the end of the line, the issue number
drops off.  This is already visible in the archive, even though there are
only three messages.

Any chance we can massage github to move the issue numbers to the front?

Also, it was not entirely clear to me from the headers whether the mailing
list archive system threading will work correctly with these messages.  By
any chance, did you test that with another list?