| 07:03 | <MikeSmith> | TimothyGu: about that revert PR, it was because due to me, um, multitasking whilst I was in the process of fixing up the commit description before merging it, I fat-fingered the merge button prematurely |
| 07:03 | <TimothyGu> | MikeSmith: ah ok |
| 07:04 | <MikeSmith> | yeah so it caused it to be merged to master with broken misleading description in the body of the commit message |
| 07:06 | <MikeSmith> | so we discussed it and after that rather than further complicating things with a revert etc, I just fix-amended the commit description for the change from the original PR |
| 07:06 | <MikeSmith> | and force-pushed |
| 07:06 | <MikeSmith> | so, sorry if you had pulled already before I force pushed that amended commit |
| 07:25 | <TimothyGu> | no I didn't, so no worries |
| 08:58 | <leclerc> | What's the "common supertype" of HTTP messages and email messages? |
| 08:59 | <leclerc> | Do we have a term for this. |
| 12:26 | <nox> | leclerc: I think they are different in such subtle ways that the supertype doesn't actually exist. |
| 12:26 | <leclerc> | nox: I guess it doesn't. |
| 12:27 | <leclerc> | nox: maybe I can pretend "MIME entity" is the supertype |
| 15:21 | <MikeSmith> | naively I would guess that “message” is the supertype |
| 15:22 | <MikeSmith> | leclerc: ⬆️ |
| 15:32 | <leclerc> | MikeSmith: message - yes. Although if it's "message" it would be an abstract kind that has no concrete application. While "MIME Entity" does have a concrete application, although historically MIME came after the header/body message format was in use online. |