Thanks to all who replied to this.

I understand why *sqfixes* is organized the way it is (one entry per 
thread,) but my concern is about BFAV, whose requirements seem very 
different.

Since the life's blood of BFAV is to show the content of entire 
threads concerning bugs and fixes on the squeak-dev mailing list, 
having BFAV be incompatible with the universal email practice of 
affixing "RE:"-style prefixes to the subject lines of email replies 
has always seemed an unfortunate choice.

This would seem to imply that sqfixes is a flawed choice as a feed for BFAV.

(I would have thought that selectively feeding directly off a 
squeak-dev  archive would have made more sense, but I suppose that 
for some reason "it's not that simple.")

In any case, Brent's reply concerning BFAV2 is very encouraging ;-)

Cheers,

  -- Scott

At 3:57 PM +0100 11/21/03, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>Scott Wallace wrote:
>
>>>BFAV does not record any mails with a differerent prefix in the subject:,
>>>(e.g. Re:....)
>>
>>
>>No, but arguably BFAV *should* be smarter about this.
>>[...]
>>Or am I missing something obvious?
>
>Yes, actually ;-)
>
>There is a button on each message in the archive 
>(http://swiki.gsug.org/sqfixes) that takes you to the whole thread 
>to read up on the discussion.
>
>>What's the downside?
>
>Often, very long threads ensue from a single posted fix or 
>enhancement, which of course should not go into the sqfixes archive. 
>We wanted it to take a concious effort to get something into the 
>archive. This is documented (http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/398).