Re: [PATCH v3] Fix FAQ entry about mailto links.

["Robert Goldman" <rpgoldman@sift.net>]

On 14 Feb 2022, at 7:22, Max Nikulin wrote:

> On 11/02/2022 00:42, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>
>> There are a couple of minor issues in the patch you sent (including a 
>> couple of grammatical errors), so attached is a revision.
>
> Great. Thank you, Robert, it exact reason why I asked for a review.
>
> I am sending the updated patch and a diff to your edits to highlight 
> my latest changes.

Hello, Max --

Some responses below, then I think merging would be fine. I am losing my 
ability and energy to process these patch files, honestly.

>
>> From e7f0f2c51950b3c0f181191c5210ea26cafc03f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 
>> 2001
>> From: "Robert P. Goldman" <rpgoldman@sift.net>
>> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:20:36 -0600
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Revert "Fix FAQ entry about mailto links."
>>
>> This reverts commit b8158af7a839a751e6976cd95d18a5d5f199024a.
>
> Would you like to have you original version in git history? For me it 
> is not a problem to make my patch updating yours one without reverting 
> the original commit (create another branch, cherry-pick commits, 
> resolve conflict to the latest state).  Otherwise you can avoid 
> unnecessary commits in your local repository by either applying my 
> patch to a new branch or using "git rebase -i master" to drop 
> unnecessary commits.

I don't need to be credited; it would be fine to just merge in whatever 
way is convenient.
>
>> +If you prefer an external application that is /not/ the one 
>> configured
>> +in your desktop environment,
>
> What is bothering me a bit is the entry title "Org-mode is not opening 
> mailto links in my *default* mail client". The updated variant mostly 
> discusses changing of defaults.

The whole thing addresses how to open mailto links in the default mail 
client. It's not our fault that figuring out how org-mode dispatches 
these links and then what goes on inside browse-url is so complicated!

>> +**side comment:** the above paragraph is hard to understand. Would 
>> it be
>> +possible to add pointers to the discussion of these issues?
>
> I do not follow Emacs development. The source is git commit history 
> and commit messages rarely have links to discussion or references to 
> bug tracker.

To be honest, I'm not sure what value this whole comment section has.  
Given that, I'm ok with whatever you want to do: leave it as it, try to 
fix it, or just remove it altogether. I actually think that removing it 
might be best. It's confusing, and will eventually become out-of-date, 
and who will update it?

I'll leave it to you to choose.

Best,
R