Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
* Pierre Habouzit <firstname.lastname@example.org> [090910 17:08]:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Sandro Tosi <email@example.com> [090910 16:09]:
> > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
> > > there are some reasons not to?
> > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our
> > distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away
> > by rewarding bug reports by pulling the reporters in lengthy
> > discussions how the bug is best fixed?
> When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he
> should mail nnn-silent or whatever,
That is only true for very small packages where only the maintainer is
intrested in. Often there are people subscribed to the package
or the maintainer some mailing list. And then you can also subscribe to
bugs, so those should always get it. Thus if someone wants to give some
additional information or insight to some bug, the current
firstname.lastname@example.org is exactly the right thing.
It might be nice to have some additional email address that is like
mailing both nnn@ and nnn-submitter@.
> because that is the exception.
It might be an exception for the first reply (and guess what: BTS sends
the maintainer a mail where the reply to is both nnn@ and the bug
submitter). But for non-maintainers sending mail to a bug report, I
guess it is even the default.
> Not the reverse. This is a major (if not _THE_ major) annoyance with the
In my eyes it is one of the biggest advantages of the BTS.
Bernhard R. Link
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"