Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
Julien Cristau <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As a general principle I think it should always be possible for people
>> to opt out of mail from any sort of automated or semi-automated system.
>> I think supporting opt-out is a good idea. But I think that if the
>> submitter opts out of receiving any mail about the bug, that should be
>> clear to the package maintainer so that the package maintainer knows
>> that follow-up questions will not receive a reply.
>> Maybe the best opt-out mechanism would be to clear the submitter field?
> I think the opt-out way is to close the bug. An address that will reach
> the submitter most of the time, but not always, is useless IMO.
Which is why I proposed clearing the submitter field, so that it's obvious
to the maintainer that there's no one home.
Bugs don't stop existing just because the submitter doesn't want to
receive further mail about them. I suppose the bug could be reparented to
the maintainer of the package, but just clearing the field seems to more
accurately represent the situation.
If the maintainer thinks that without a submitter to talk to, there's no
point in pursuing the bug, the maintainer can of course close it, but the
bug system shouldn't make that determination.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>