Re: Good communication with upstream is good idea
Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> writes:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Reinhard Tartler [Wed, Jul 23 2008, 04:36:39PM]:
>
>> > How about activating it the first time they send a gpg-signed mail to
>> > the mail interface?
>>
>> My point is that I don't have the impression that Debian Developers want
>
> Fine. And mine tends to differ.
I should clarify. I don't have the impression that *every* Debian
Developer wants ...
>> to have an LP account activated at all, so IMO it doesn't really matter
>> if the account is activated implicitly via some (authenticated) action
>> or exlicitly by clicking on the 'claim this account' link.
>
> Of course it does. Give every DD a "hidden" account, ...
Every DD and debian contributor already has a "hidden" account that is
created on package import. https://launchpad.net/~blade e.g. is yours,
but it seems that you already have activated it and used it already in
the past.
As an example for an unclaimed Launchpad account, see e.g.
https://launchpad.net/~joerg.
> ... i.e. not displayed anywhere on the web.
Why should those accounts be hidden? What problem would be solved with
that?
> For external observer this would not change the current situation but
> provide DDs the flexibility requested in this thread.
Which would be exactly what? Close Bugs via changelog? No need for an LP
account here. Or use the malone mail interface? See
https://help.launchpad.net/BugTrackerEmailInterface for the
documentation how to use that. Note that you need to claim your LP
account first and associate your gpg key with it.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
Reply to: