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

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters



On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 22:31, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, David Nusinow wrote:
>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>> On what % of bugs will the submitter be unnecessarily "deluged with
>> mail"? This seems like an abstract hypothetical with no basis in
>> reality at least according to any of the packages I've ever worked
>> on.
>
> I'm fine with it being the default, it just needs to be something that
> a submitter can choose not to receive.
>
> If the consensus is that we should implement Cc:'ing the submitter
> quickly, and that it's ok to implement the opt-out at some future
> time, that's trivial for me to do, but I've been loth to change the
> historical functionality of the BTS like this without clear consensus.

Given the high rate of people (at least in those that replied here) in
favor of adding submitter in the loop of nnnn@b.d.o, I think your plan
is very good:

- include the submitter in nnnn@b.d.o by default now;
- implement the opt-out somewhere in the future; that could also be
'never', if the fall back of the change generates no concerns from
users.

Thanks a lot for considering this change,
-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi


Reply to: