On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Yes, and the agreement after that feedback was to try it out and then figure > out what changes were needed? As about half the feedback said it was better > without and half said it was better with.
Well, I can't speak to anyone else's opinion, but I'm quite sure I raised the issue that we need a way to call out which messages in the thread are important, and I think that's pretty much what Peter is saying, too. I find the new tool essentially unusable - having one link to the whole thread instead of individual links to just the important messages in that thread is a huge regression for me, as is the lack of the most recent activity on the summary page. I don't know how much more feedback than that you need to be convinced, but I'm going to shut up now before I say something I will later regret.
According to my mailbox, you didn't even respond on that thread. But it may well be that your email ended up on some other thread and therefor was not included when I went back and looked over all the responses I got on it. If that was the case, then I apologize for loosing track of the feedback.
The "most recent activity on the summary page" is on my short-term todo list to fix. The past couple of days have been a bit too busy to get that done though, mainly due to the upcoming FOSDEM and pgday events. But rest assured that part is definitely on the list, as it doesn't actually change any functionality, it's just a view. Same as that "quick stats numbers" thing on the frontpage of each cf.
As for being able to flag more things on individual emails/patches, I am definitely not against that in principle, if that's what people prefer. But I don't think it's unreasonable to give it a few days and then collect feedback on that (and other things).
Which of course also includes rolling back the whole thing if people prefer the older one - that has been an option on the table from the time we decided to give this one a try in the first place. (Though in that case, we really need to find a maintainer for that code, as it's we don't seem to have that now. But I'm sure that can get sorted)