Re: Should maintainers receive copies of their own BTS mails?
* Don Armstrong (Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:53:11 -0700)
>
> 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.
To be bound to "subscription system" means being subscribed to mailing
list, receiving bunches of messages, resorting them locally, etc.. After
that, to reply only "as i wish", even somebody asked to make a courtesy copy.
BTS have this system, and you are bound to it, because so far i saw no
option in your propositions. Was it hard to implement or maintain? Does
it mean no other option exists and nobody willing to try it?
I have no such experience and, i think, i can prove, that there are other
more productive and flexible means. Thus this misunderstanding.
>> > 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.
OK. Flexible is, when *anybody* can make things *easily*. Asking for a
ticket once and having bug id is easy, also no stupid spam. Everybody
automaticaly in Cc list, until it is useful for *them*.
>> > 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.
You fail to understand your fellow developer. "XXXXX-all" is the same
"insanely long Cc list" below and have nothing to do with management
of the will of every ocasional and/or (un)experienced participant.
>> > 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.
I was asking about opinion, not coding, but yet have received only
misunderstanding.
>
> Don Armstrong
>
> --
> "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
> For those who do not, none is possible."
>
OK, whatever. After what i've seeing about reportbug-ng, policy
bureaucracy, i just don't care. I thougth, at least bug reporting is
a rock-solid thing. But it only turned to be still maintained best
practice.
It's a pitty, that effort to understand me was so miserable.
____
Reply to: