Gmane vs. Mail Archive notmuch-report config

[W. Trevor King]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 03:02:58PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Thu 2018-02-15 10:56:29 -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:01:40AM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> >> -      "message-url": "http://mid.gmane.org/{message-id}"
> >> +      "message-url": "https://mid.gmane.org/{message-id}"
> >
> > I was wondering whether it made sense to change these to something
> > else with Gmane down.  But it appears that Gmane is back up, possibly
> > since ~2016-09-14 [1]).  The current notmuch-report output [2] is
> > linking to the Mail Archive though (e.g. [3]) and not to Gmane
> > (e.g. [4]).  Perhaps we want to revert 2d6500a0 (change mid link to
> > mail-archive.com, 2017-03-19) and go back to Gmane?  Or use one of the
> > other notmuch-based archives that has been floating around on the list
> > recently?
> 
> while i'm game to reconsider this (and clearly my work on
> https://nmbug.notmuchmail.org/btsmail is intended for a future
> replacement), i don't want to block the proposed patch from landing.
> what did you think of the rest of the patch? :)

No opinions on the rest of the patch ;).  I'm generally in favor of
HTTPS, but didn't check all the links and such.  I just thought “why
bother updating these if Gmane is down?” and then found out that it
was back up and that our notmuch-report wasn't using it.  This “Gmane
vs. Mail Archive notmuch-report config” sub-thread is just about that,
and not part of patch review.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20180215/9f95c9cd/attachment.sig>