Re: Changing the value of Maintainer field
Rafael Laboissière writes ("Re: Changing the value of Maintainer field"):
> Sorry for that. I thought that consensus was reached and went ahead with
> the change. Let us discuss the issue and revert the change in Git, if
> necessary.
Thanks. I appreciate the value of going ahead and seeing if anyone
objects, so I am not offended.
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [2018-05-15 12:53]:
> > * If I want to filter the emails back to the newsgroup, I will
> > have to write some custom filter configuration (which risks
> > exposing my tracker password)
>
> How are you filtering the messages sent to the debian-ci@lists.debian.org
> mailing list right now? How would it differ if you were going to filter
> messages sent to team+ci@tracker.debian.org.
Each newsgroup has an email address, which is subscribed to the
mailing list.
I don't think my newsgroup gateways are that unusual in their
fundamentals. There are lots of ad-hoc archiving or gatwaying
services, and also official mailing list archives etc.
The result of this change AIUI is that messages which would
previously have been sent to the list, now miss out on all that
processing.
They are not archived, for example, except if they are archived in
their origin systems.
> > Also, doing that means that replying to the automated emails will
> > reply to the list, which is usually correct.
>
> I checked what happens with the packages maintained by the Debian Octave
> Group, for which the Maintainer field is set to
> team+pkg-octave-team@tracker.debian.org. This address receive automatic
> notifications sent by "debian-bts-link", "Debian FTP Masters", and
> "Debian Bug Tracking System" (and perhaps others). When I reply to any
> of those messages, they never go to the mailing list, but to the
> appropriate recipients.
I think this may depend on what reply function you use in your MUA.
Did you "reply to all" ?
I don't have a gateway to the octave list so I can't easily test that,
but I looked at debian-dpkg. I found this message
Subject: dpkg_1.19.0.5_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Resent-Message-ID: <9VgQsqzJhLE.A.RxH.lEsXaB@bendel>
Message-Id: <E1ebe1n-000I2W-SX@fasolo.debian.org>
I transferred the message to my MUA to reply to it in the normal way,
and Reply-to-All (shift-R in VM) wanted to reply to ftpmaster, the
uploader, and the list, which seems right to me.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: