[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the
> different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
> Ideally, I'd imaging nnnnnn@b.d.o to reach
> - submitter

nnn@bdo should reach submitters who are interested in being reached by
default, but submitters who just want their problem fixed shouldn't be
deluged with mail. Always cc'ing submitters doesn't allow for
submitters to decide not to get those mail messages.

The right solution (which is on my long todo list) is to:

 1) allow submiters subscribe to a bug at submit@ time

 2) nnn-submitter@ makes "certain" that the submitter gets one copy
    message as well as the bug report. (Currently nnn-submitter@ is an
    alias for the submitter only.)

The main blockers for this is that it requires patches to EoC[0] which
I haven't written (and various other bits of administrivia) to:

  1) allow direct subscription of people to bugs by the BTS[1]
  2) report subscribers to bugs back to the BTS

Once that's done, we can discuss whether to make subscription to the
bug for submitters the default or not; it'll of course be controllable
at submit@ time no matter what is the default.

Don Armstrong

0: This is what the per-bug subscription currently uses; I'm not
particularly attached to one MLM or another.

1: This isn't strictly necessary, but I'd like to couple this to the
submit@ ack message sent out by the BTS, so submitters can just
respond to subscribe (and I'd like to skip the confirmation for GPG
signed mails which have previously opted-in with that key.)
I'd never hurt another living thing.
But if I did...
It would be you.
 -- Chris Bishop  http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: