Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <3F9A8C07.7010608@virbus.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:43:19 +0200
From: Joerg Heinicke <jheinicke@virbus.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [proposal] Doco
References: <3F97CC8A.3040102@apache.org> <3F97FFF8.7020202@journalscape.com>
 <3F992248.4010604@virbus.de> <3F992D61.10807@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <3F992D61.10807@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 24.10.2003 15:47, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> 
>> We should at least use the body with an explicite "accept" and 
>> "reject" in it. This can't be done by accident, while it can happen 
>> for sending a mail.

But why not at least explicite "accept"/"reject" in the subject or the 
body of a mail?

>> I would like to see a little application, where a link in the mail 
>> points directly to the resource. The committer has to login and accept 
>> or reject the change. So conflict situations can also be much better 
>> handled and reverting changes should also be easier to be implemented.
> 
> 
> I dislike this, it stops me from doing auditing offline.

Is offline/online still an issue?

Furthermore we only talk about minutes if not seconds per day: the mails 
are sent, you can read offline and decide whether to accept or reject,, 
go online, click on the link in the mail, login, click "accept" or 
"reject", finished. Even on the wiki not more than ten pages change per 
day. We are many more committers.

Joerg