Re: request to kill nag messages
Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
> On 21 May 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
> >
> > > No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
> > > twice a week to every developer.
> >
> > I don't get such a report.
>
> Probably because you are not subscribed to the bug-report mailing list ;-)
>
> You have the choice to either recieve bug report synopsis this way, or not
> by whether you choose to subscribe, or not.
>
> The nag messages are specifically designed so that individual developers
> may _not_ request they not recieve such mail.
>
> If you can't see the principle involved in the difference between these
> two approaches, then I regret I will never be able to convince you there
> is, indeed, a difference.
I see the difference. You were just saying that they were mailed to
every developer, and I am pointing out that that's not the case.
> There is a significant difference between a "reasoned" list of "critical
> release bugs" and the arbitrary "age" mechanism of the nag system. There
> are many _good_ reasons to leave a bug report open for an indefinite
> period of time. There is nothing inately evil about an open bug report.
> The nag message implies that exactly the opposite is the case.
Perhaps instead of just skirting the isue, why don't you name these
reasons so that we can discuss them directly?
--
John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting & programming jgoerzen@complete.org |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Remote from the Debian booth at Linux Expo
Reply to: