Dear Fellow Ruby Talkers,
Short of creating a new list, is there means by which we can collectively reduce the noise/signal?
For instance, the Freecycle mailing list and for-sale newsgroups use a prepending of a class of subject to the title or subject of a post.
I'll give it a guernsey. But what?... Well, here's my first (best?) take:
CORE: A discussion of Ruby syntax largely without the implementation specifics involving much C code and which might be otherwise more appropriate for the core mailing list.
CORELIB: Discussions to do with extensions/modifications to the core library but not syntax.
STDLIB: Discussion to do with extensions/modifications to the standard library.
LIB: Discussion of existing non-core or non-standard libraries or other bits of code. Additionally this could be for if you're not sure if it should go 'in' CORELIB, STDLIB, or if you're being lazy...?
NEWLIB: Announcements of, or proposals for, and discussion of new libraries. The suggested expiry on newness is a clear month. So, if a library is released/suggested in January, then through the remainder of January and all through February it is deemed new, but come March it is then it becomes LIB:. I can see it now, libraries all being released around the start of the month! Is that such a bad thing? The 1st could be Library Day!
META: Discussion about the list itself. Perhaps ad hominem nonsense can go here?
And rather than having a MISC: category it is probably better to make it optional and to assume that everything else is not easily placed into the above; although an explicit MISC: won't go astray I suppose...
Also, I understand that things go OT and that some posts may be in two or more categories (in which case just use / to delimit each I suppose), but is anyone else prepared to give this or some other prepending a go?
I'll volunteer to persist in using it for a very long time from now and I've already started the ball as of the title of this post.
P.S. I note the existing use of [ANN]. Are there others than [ANN] which use this notation of ? These could be combined unless there is conflict, as in: LIB:[ANN], NEWLIB:[ANN], or is [ANN]LIB: and [ANN]NEWLIB: better? I find LIB:[ANN] clearer.
P.P.S. The use of an inverse ratio is deliberate. As in, less is more, just like Ruby.