If you know something has been released as an update, feel free to
document is as update, same way Doug does. Doug is the only one that
makes these facts, but anyone can document them. Same goes for
Harvesters and [approved], for example, if/when we screw up the
convention.

I think the semantics for being not displayed in the archive should be
{'[approved]'. '[closed]'. '[update*]'} anySatisfy: [:e | e match: <any
of the message subjects>].

Daniel

Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:08:47AM -0400, Brent Vukmer wrote:
> > Doug --
> > 
> > Is it OK if we mark these [ENH][KCP]|[MCP] posts that have already been converted to updates, as such?  If so...
> > 
> > Marcus --
> > 
> > It is so cool that you are rockin' like a hurricane in the archives!  I would love it if you marked posts like these with updatestream-number information.
> > Either "[closed] -- included as update #123456" or "[update - 123456]", depending on what Doug thinks is the best way to mark it.
> > 
> Ok, I'l use [closed] with the update-number from now on. ("update" and
> "approved" are reverved for use by the Harvesters, IMHO. actually, it
> should be theirs to decide what's closed and what's not, but with that
> big baglog I took the liberty to just doit...)
> 
>   Marcus
> 
> -- 
> Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de