[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
        - 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:

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

Yet Don did his reply against BTS rules:

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-Source: debbugs
Mail-Followup-To: 434149@bugs.debian.org
(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: