From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Garreau\, Alexandre" <galex-713@galex-713.eu>
Subject: Re: org-store/insert-link truncating the full subject of mails
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 12:43:02 +0200
Message-ID: <87lg6j3c21.fsf@portable.galex-713.eu>
References: <875zxpi8bn.fsf@portable.galex-713.eu>
	<87k1m4g1qk.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
	<87woq4pveb.fsf@portable.galex-713.eu>
	<874ld8fpqf.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87in1ojntq.fsf@aminb.org>
	<87zhuzd9ih.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60853)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <galex-713@galex-713.eu>) id 1gGM3d-0000qf-Me
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 06:43:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <galex-713@galex-713.eu>) id 1gGM3d-0006Uy-1h
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 06:43:05 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87zhuzd9ih.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of
	"Sat, 27 Oct 2018 11:27:50 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Amin Bandali <bandali@gnu.org>
Cc: emacs-org list <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Le 27/10/2018 =C3=A0 11h27, Nicolas Goaziou a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
> Hello,
>
> Amin Bandali <bandali@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Can you please elaborate on what you mean by being on the safe
>> side in this context?  What problems could potentially arise from
>> returning the subject in full length?
>
> I don't know. This is why I agree it is safer to limit length to an
> arbitrary number instead of allowing any size.

Without justification, that=E2=80=99d look like =E2=80=9Cargument from igno=
rance=E2=80=9D, so
unless a real reason is found, I believe it would be better to remove a
truncation that will very certainly in fact bother at least some users
(while there=E2=80=99s still 0 data point on how non-truncation might be
bothering, and that=E2=80=99s what being asked).