Bug#434149: Should maintainers receive copies of their own BTS mails?
* Don Armstrong
* Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:29:25 -0700
>
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Thanks for giving me the best proof that my request is valid: I have
>> not received this email. The reply you sent only went to a single
>> mailbox: the maintainer's. I had to go to the web interface to see
>> it.
>
> If you're interested in the discussion around this bug, you should
> subscribe to it.
1. There's a new feature -- subscribing.
pros: while done, it's easy to follow bug's messages
cons:
- handled by another party: l.d.o; unneeded complexity
- subscribing have 2 stages with total 2/2 messages sent from
both sides
- unsubscribing -- the same
[ skip subscribing part ]
>> and I don't want to use it anyway because it has no functional
>> justification.
>
> Its functional justification is that it handles determining who wants
> to receive messages related to a bug far better than anything I'm
> going to be willing to write in the near future.
This is inconsistent with (see below)
>> When several people notice the same bug, it is often that they all
>> write to the same bug after it being open, thanks to reportbug.
>> Then, instead of blindly replying to the last email, I have to skim
>> through all emails I have received on this topic to make up a list
>> of recipients. This is all but efficient.
>
> You shouldn't ever bother to do this. Just send messages to the bug
> number.
this statement. Josselin replied to the bug number. That message got
`reply-to' added by BTS:
#v+
From: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.debian.devel.bugs.general
Subject: Bug#434149: Should maintainers receive copies of their own BTS mails?
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:47:55 +0200
Reply-To: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>, 434149@bugs.debian.org
#v-
Yet Don did his reply against BTS rules:
#v+
To: 434149@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-Cc: Debbugs developers <debian-debbugs@lists.debian.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:33:06 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.434149.B434149.118511457214967@bugs.debian.org>
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 434149
X-Debian-PR-Package: debbugs
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Debian-PR-Source: debbugs
Mail-Followup-To: 434149@bugs.debian.org
#v-
(no joss in `To' or `Cc')
That's actually because Don have `debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org'
already. And additional noise thus is unneeded. That's why
`Mail-Followup-To: 434149@bugs.debian.org' appeared in reply.
2. Thus, here are two sides
- BTS maintainer
- package maintainer
and they have different experience and goals, while trying to
understand each other.
> I'm open to adding a header to messages so that you can easily
> indicate your desire to be subscribed to a bug, and I probably will do
> that as soon as it's possible to get the subcription information off
> of l.d.o.
I think BTS's `reply-to' rules must not be implied, but based on some
policy. That policy can be delivered from either `Cc', `Mail-Followup-To'
or both.
3. Just keeping `Cc' can become annoying at some point or in the case if
the interest was lost. Thus ordinary means of having a discussion
thread are not apply.
To sum up all three points: something must be designed to satisfy and
increase effectiveness.
___
> UF: What's your favourite coffee blend?
> PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? "If geiger
> counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick."
:)
____
Reply to: