[TAG] Processing the Mailbag

[Jimmy O'Regan]

Kat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:19:01PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
>> On 07/06/06, Kat Tanaka Okopnik <kat at linuxgazette.net> wrote:
>>> After becoming thoroughly confused and frustrated, I decided to "assess
>>> what is there and assign categories accordingly" rather than "attempt to
>>> understand pre-existing categories (Tips, Help Wanted, General Mail,
>>> TAG, ...)".
>> Sure. When you're in the driving seat, you need to reach the pedals.
> 
> *laugh* I suspect you didn't know that I'm 5'2".
> 

No. So... stilts?

> Since these days, I share my driving with a fella who's 6'3", there's a
> whole lot of seat-adjusting going on.
> 

Heh.

> 
>>> The current procedure is for me to go through all the LG-related mail as
>>> and cull off things which I categorize as Followup, Mailbag/TAG, and
>>> Talkback. Within each of those categories, I do the following sort on
>>> threads
>>> :
>>> [Followup] -  These are continuations of previously published threads,
>>> starting with a link to the URL for the previously published bit.
>>> Followup threads are sorted in chronological order.
>> They're not really separate. Usually, we just put add a comment like:
>>
>> %j
>> This is a response to a thread in
>> [[http://linuxgazette.net/foo/bar/][issue whatever]]
>> %%j
>>
>> The delimiters are... abitrary. The '%j' and '%%j' marks my comments.
>> I'm working on making that part of the code a bit more sane... among
>> other things (Ben: apologies for not delivering on the code changes I
>> promised. I won't make any excuses, but... well, you've seen the poor
>> state of the code I've written recently :) I *think* I've finished
>> that part, but... I need to start using a revision system of some
>> sort.
> 
> Hm. It looks like that's basically the same as the
>  <p class="editorial"></p> markup that Ben requested. Your version has
> fewer keystrokes but the disadvantage of being arbitrary and thus hard
> to remember.
> 
> I see what you mean about "not really separate", but I'd classed thusly
> because I judged it simpler to know "this set requires this sort of
> handling", and something which isn't a followup doesn't need this.
> Additionally, I've been linking to the specific thread rather than "a
> thread in <a href="issue#"> "

So have I, I just gave a poor example.

> 
> What would be really useful right now in revising the new script Ben
> wrote would be a list of the delimiters (or rather the sorts of things
> they were delimiting) to see if all the known cases are being handled
> now.
> 

Hmm. As long as it handles the markup that's *actually* used in our
mail, it should be fine - most of the rest of the markup is only used by
3 people.

> 
> 
>> The definition I was given [snip]
> 
> I'm not sure what you were defining here.
> 

It doesn't matter; Thomas explained it elsewhere.

> 
>>> Of these, only Talkback gets its own separate page by default. This is
>>> done so that the Talkback section is prominent in the main index for any
>>> issue, with the idea of emphasizing the highly interactive nature of LG.
>> I like it, FWIW.
> 
> Yay! That seems to be the one thing that everyone thus far has been in
> agreement on. 

Oh crap - allow me to change my vote to 'nay', just to be difficult :-P

>>> Laundrette - I don't actually sort the feed into this category, I just
>>> ignore threads that I think will end up there.  It would probably be
>>> useful to have some active collaboration early in the process (at least
>>> as far as confirmation that certain items do *not* belong in "Mailbag") .
>> Well, I was usually done with the Launderette before the rest of the
>> mail processing started, and most of the time I helped Heather, I just
>> did the basic formatting and left quality control, additional
>> comments, and the final generation of the files to her, so there was
>> never really much scope for overlap (and when there was, it was
>> deliberate).
>>
>> It's usually obvious, though :)
> 
> So if I understand what you just said, Heather used to know what you'd
> put into Laundrette because you'd already finished it. It also looks
> like you were passing the mostly-finished Laundrette over to her for
> final go-through (q.c., comments, file-gen - yes?)
> 

Um... no, I was talking about the other parts of the mail. Every now and
then, Heather might have sent me a bit or two for the Launderette, but
it never went through Heather.

> Thus far, I've been *so* far behind you that it was obvious what didn't
> need touching, but once TAG/Mailbag and Laundrette are sync'ed again,
> going back to the old routine (or something like it) of having some
> threads obviously and explicitly defined each month  - nothing new in
> concept, we just have to hammer out details so that it's clear what
> needs to happen.
> 
> How does setting a date for comparing notes on the list of threads
> headed Laundrette-ward sound? 

Um... Why? Was there anything at all in the Launderette that you would
have considered using?

> Also, I understand you're losing net.access soon - will this affect
> Laundrette?
> 

I've lost continuous 'net access, but I now have a backup plan. As this
e-mail proves :)

[snip]

>>> I intersperse where I can, and
>>> when a branch is too complex, I break it off and quote enough for
>>> continuity and continue from there.
>> Yeah, that's probably the worst part of the mail - but mostly, the
>> worst offending threads end up in my department :)
> 
> I noticed that you'd done some nice work with that sort of thing. (I
> seem to recall you did some of that with a long discussion on Flash, but
> perhaps I'm hallucinating.)

Ah... yeah, I use RST for that stuff, rather than the TAG scripts.