Bug#434149: Should maintainers receive copies of their own BTS mails?
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * Don Armstrong
> * Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:29:25 -0700
> > If you're interested in the discussion around this bug, you should
> > subscribe to it.
> 1. There's a new feature -- subscribing.
It's actually not that new; Joachim and Pascal did the l.d.o side and
I did the b.d.o side over two years ago now.
> 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
This is a requirement for any subscription system, even if a message
to a bug automatically causes you to be subscribed, as From is trivial
to forge. I am interested in perhaps allowing people to confirm a
subscription once, and then be able to subscribe to any bug using that
same address without further confirmation (or perhaps with a GPG
signature), but to date the code has not been written.
> 2. Thus, here are two sides
> - BTS maintainer
> - package maintainer
> and they have different experience and goals, while trying to
> understand each other.
In this particular instance, I'm sitting in both positions, because
this bug is against debbugs, and I am both a BTS maintainer as well as
a maintainer of debbugs.
> > 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.
The reply-to: rules are actually kind of silly, and probably will be
junked once its easier to subscribe to bugs without confirmation.
Plus, it's always appropriate for people to cull the Cc: list.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
-- Robert Heinlein