Re: Should maintainers receive copies of their own BTS mails?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * Don Armstrong (Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:53:11 -0700)
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >> But what if one isn't bound to the "subscription system"?
> >
> > I don't understand what you're asking.
>
> 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'm still not sure what you're getting at; I'm open to other options,
but I'm not particularly interested in writing a mailing list manager
when there are mailing list managers which exist and do the job.
> i can prove, that there are other more productive and flexible
> means.
If you can come up with "more productive and flexible means" that
satisfy my criterea, then feel free to recommend them.
> >> 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.
First off, what you're asking for here is ease of use, not
flexibility.
That said, ease of use and flexibility is precisely the point of doing
things this way. You send a message once to the subscription system
which says "Yerp; I'm a real person, subscribe me to lists" and then
on subsequent messages, you set a header or pseudoheader or send mail
to -subscribe for the bug, and you're automatically subscribed without
responding to an ack message. If you decide you don't want to be
subcribed, you send mail to -unsubcribe for the bug.
What could be simipler for users of the BTS while still maintaining
flexibility?
> Everybody automaticaly in Cc list, until it is useful for *them*.
There's no way for people to communicate that they no longer want to
be Cc:'ed or that being Cc:'ed is counterproductive without having
some sort of mailing list tracking it.
> > I don't understand what you're asking here either.
>
> You fail to understand your fellow developer.
Indeed.
> "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.
-all doesn't meat the critera that I explained at the beginning of
this subthread: specifically, it doesn't allow people to opt out.
> > 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.
Feel free to code whatever you like; I'm primarily interested in
discussing the nuances of changes that I will enact.
> > "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those
> > who do not, none is possible."
Heh. The random signature generator strikes again.
> 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.
I understand that english (apparently) isn't your first language, but
even given that it's rather difficult to follow you. It's far less
time consuming for me to point out when I don't understand what you're
getting at than to try to construct the logical foundations for you; I
don't mind holding a discussion, but holding both sides of the
discussion with myself is tedious. I'm not much into tedium. [And
frankly, if my attempts to understand you are miserable, I might as
well just not bother.]
Don Armstrong
--
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost
anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into
the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator.
-- Jeff Dege, jdege@winternet.com
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: