Re: spam (Re: Bug#202373: traitor offstage)
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> 20-07-2007, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> пишет:
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >> See last one? It's without context, while previous have one. And
> >> this is currenty depends: or it's generated by reportbug, or pkg
> >> name added by hand by developer who answered. I'm asking about
> >> making all them look same.
> >
> > The all look the same; the only thing that debbugs adds is the
> > #NNN:; every other bit is the subject of the message which was
> > sent to bug NNN or affected bug NNN.
> >
> > Control transcripts can affect hundreds or thousands of bugs, so
> > there's no way that all of the packages will ever be listed in the
> > subject.
>
> But NNN is unique for one particular pkg,
It's actually not. There's no limit to how many packages a bug can be
assigned to.
> >> That's what i'm talking about.
> >
> > That's not reasonable either, because you're assuming a message is in
> > reply to another message, when it isn't neccessarily a reply.
> >
> > Making it easier for people to include the appropriate References: and
> > In-Reply-To: is the way forward, which will resolve most cases of this
> > for actual messages. I'm willing to apply appropriate patches for
> > that, but I'm not planning on faking References: or In-Reply-To: for
> > the above reasons.
>
> If not "References" i'm will be OK with "X-Resent-References" or
> whatever else.
You already get the equivalent of what you're asking for by separating
on Subject: #NNNN and ordering by date.
> This kind of thing is much easy to implement and maintain, than all
> that subscribe/unsubscribe kind of things.
Heh. It's actually not; requiring every message that is sent to the
BTS to parse the logfile for information on the previous messages is
definetly non-trivial.
Don Armstrong
--
What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for
someone more interesting.
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: