Re: Should maintainers receive copies of their own BTS mails?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * Don Armstrong (22-07-2007):
> > 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.
>
> But what if one isn't bound to the "subscription system"?
I don't understand what you're asking.
> > 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.
>
> This isn't flexible (storage/dynamic management of GPG, etc).
This objection makes no sense.
> > 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 assume, that something has higher priority here. Your way of
> replying suggests the first choice.
I don't understand what you're asking here either.
> > 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.
>
> Please, tell me what do you think about scheme, i've described in
> message to Josseline. I just need a wise opinion, because i will
> implement it anyway.
The scheme that you've described (from what I can parse of it) is not
an improvement on the existing system. It involves carrying around
insanely long Cc: lists and doesn't allow the expression of any
preference about bug correspondence.
While the situation currently is suboptimal, I'm not particularly
interested in coding stopgap measures when a final solution is the
right way forward.
Don Armstrong
--
"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none is possible."
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: