Hi,

> More generally, I think that the only "annoying posts" are those that 
> either
> briefly review/test something (e.g., "[er][et] looks good"), and those 
> which
> finalize an open issue ([closed], [approved], [update] etc). And those
> happen to be 90% of them.
>
> So perhaps Squeak-bugs should be seen as a maintenance list where these
> things get posted and archived for people to review and check the status 
> of
> things. In fact, it may not even have any public subscribers if BFAV gets
> the messages directly ;-)
>
> I would then probably leave it up to the people posting the reviews and
> comments to decide whether this is a "maintenance" post (being sent to
> Squeak-bugs) or whether this is a "discussion" post requiring further
> investigation (and thus being sent to Squeak-dev, or both). With the 
> default
> probably being a maintenance post (given the current usage patterns of
> BFAV).
>
> Cheers,
> - Andreas


Under our harvesting preocedure a review of a fix is just as important to 
getting the fix into the image as the fix itself.

My mail reader filters harvesting messages into a separate folder where I 
can read the entire thread.

It does not bug me.

The answer is, as always, better tools.

- Brent