On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Eric Liu via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I've switched the default email format to be plain text only now. This > option should be per-user configurable, but somehow it is not shown in the > "Settings"; I'll try if I can make the option personalized.Thank you for working on this upgrade! Is there a way that we can remove the [Request, X lines] tag from the email headers on phab patches? While it's neat to understand how large a patch is, you can get a rough feel for that information by looking at the patch contents. Unfortunately, the extra text means we lose information from the subject line when viewing emails from a smaller screen (like a mobile device), so I'm not certain that the utility warrants the cost (at least, to me). ~Aaron
Thanks for the feedback Aaron! :) I've disabled it. I think the annoying part really is the status (e.g. Request, Closed etc) in the tag, and I am wondering if a tag with just line numbers like "(N Loc)" would be better. But I'm not really sure about the trade-off here. - Eric On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:05 PM Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Eric Liu via cfe-commits > <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I've switched the default email format to be plain text only now. This > > option should be per-user configurable, but somehow it is not shown in > the > > "Settings"; I'll try if I can make the option personalized. > > Thank you for working on this upgrade! > > Is there a way that we can remove the [Request, X lines] tag from the > email headers on phab patches? While it's neat to understand how large > a patch is, you can get a rough feel for that information by looking > at the patch contents. Unfortunately, the extra text means we lose > information from the subject line when viewing emails from a smaller > screen (like a mobile device), so I'm not certain that the utility > warrants the cost (at least, to me). > > ~Aaron >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160930/9cd5e43a/attachment.html>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Eric Liu <ioeric at google.com> wrote:> Thanks for the feedback Aaron! :) > > I've disabled it. I think the annoying part really is the status (e.g. > Request, Closed etc) in the tag, and I am wondering if a tag with just line > numbers like "(N Loc)" would be better. But I'm not really sure about the > trade-off here.Thank you for disabling it! Also, I agree, the Request, Closed, etc stuff is also rather superfluous in some regards. But that at least helps to determine whether the email is one I can archive immediately or not (such as something that's been closed or abandoned), so perhaps there is some utility with it? I do agree that it distracts from the subject line, unfortunately. ~Aaron> > - Eric > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:05 PM Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Eric Liu via cfe-commits >> <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > I've switched the default email format to be plain text only now. This >> > option should be per-user configurable, but somehow it is not shown in >> > the >> > "Settings"; I'll try if I can make the option personalized. >> >> Thank you for working on this upgrade! >> >> Is there a way that we can remove the [Request, X lines] tag from the >> email headers on phab patches? While it's neat to understand how large >> a patch is, you can get a rough feel for that information by looking >> at the patch contents. Unfortunately, the extra text means we lose >> information from the subject line when viewing emails from a smaller >> screen (like a mobile device), so I'm not certain that the utility >> warrants the cost (at least, to me). >> >> ~Aaron
On 30 September 2016 at 14:21, Eric Liu via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Thanks for the feedback Aaron! :) > > I've disabled it. I think the annoying part really is the status (e.g. > Request, Closed etc) in the tag, and I am wondering if a tag with just line > numbers like "(N Loc)" would be better. But I'm not really sure about the > trade-off here.I'd suggest that [PATCH] is a waste of screen real estate too - the `Dnnnnn:` prefix makes it obvious. I do appreciate there's an argument for having it for consistency with people who post patches directly to llvm-commits. Alex