Le dimanche 22 juillet 2007 à 07:29 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : > If you're interested in the discussion around this bug, you should > subscribe to it. I have already explained that I won't do it. > > You can't expect people to subscribe to a bug they are interested > > in. > > I think I've just done that, actually. You may disagree with the > reasonableness of my expectations, but it's kind of silly to disagree > with my ability to have them. You can play dumb if you want, but that doesn't make it a reasonable expectation. > If you're not interested in learning how to subscribe to a bug (skip > the next line now, because it's sending a message to > firstname.lastname@example.org) then you're going to be rather > unhappy, because I'm not going to make sending a message to all people > who have ever sent a message to a bug the default. And until you do that, you just increase the workload for maintainers. There are 1600 bugs open on the GNOME packages; I'm not going to tell every bug submitter and contributor (for which there isn't even a sane way to make a list) to subscribe to the bug. All that leaves is the need to skip through the report before replying to any mail from the BTS. > > 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. I'm not asking that there should be no management about who wants or not to receive messages. I'm asking this management to be opt-out rather than opt-in. Currently bug subscribing serves as a justification to the insane recipient management of debbugs. "Well, you can just subscribe to the bug" is an excuse for everything. Sorry, but things don't work like that. You need to make the *default* behavior obvious. Expert users always find their way if it is properly documented, but novice users won't even try to find a documentation. > > 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. Sorry, but unlike you in this discussion, I expect bug reporters and contributors to receive the messages I send. Otherwise, I can as well read a book or watch TV, it will have the same result for them. > 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. * That may fix the issue for reportbug users, as support for this header could be added in it, but it doesn't change the general case. Listen, people write to email@example.com, and: * They expect their email to go to the bug submitter; currently I have to resend it to the original submitter, which is a complete waste of time. * They expect to be recipients of new mails sent about this bug; currently this is done by hand. * Sorry, but I'm not going to reply to each bug submitter/contributor with "please send an email with the blabla header set". A number of bug reporters wouldn't even know how to set a header. In case you haven't yet understood: please CC me on your replies, as the Reply-To indicates. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=