[Nut-upsdev] RFC: new variable battery.status

thomas schorpp thomas.schorpp at gmail.com
Sat Nov 8 14:18:55 UTC 2014

Am 08.11.2014 um 14:38 schrieb Charles Lepple:
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at mittelstaedt.us> wrote:
>> Now I suppose your going to respond with that immature drivel that's been floating around, lets see if I remember it:
>>> Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>>     > Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>>     >> Top-posting.
>>>     >>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>> We all must make sure our postings are formatted so your circa 1982 /bin/mail command can still read it <eyeroll>


> Ted,
> As someone who spends a lot of time digging through the NUT mailing list archives, trying to find the context for previous list discussions, this is actually not such a ridiculous request. I know, we could solve this by moving to some mailing list software that folds previous replies like current mail readers do. But it's a lot of work for not much gain.

That wasn't a "request", it was a "should" *suggestion* passing what I was honoured to learn from kernel mailing lists maintainers Years before.

> While the text formatting hasn't evolved much since Usenet, I would hope the people have evolved during that same timeframe. You seem to have a lot of UPS experience, and it's a shame that we can't put it to a more constructive use. I'm still open to the doc/FAQ improvements we discussed in July.

I WOULD second that, too. And I've not yet got why Ted reacts on me like I had dropped an UPS on his cat.

I'll give it another try.


More information about the Nut-upsdev mailing list