Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

[Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com>]

Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:40:14PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> > 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.
> 
> I agree with those who've said that a given mail address either should, or
> should not, forward to the submitter.  I also think it's important to fix
> it so nnn@bugs.debian.org is an address that *does* cc: the submitter, and
> for messages not to the submitter we should use -maintonly or something
> like it.

A lot has been said about CCing submitters, but what about other 
contributors? Is there any reason someone would want to comment on a bug 
report and _not_ be notified of further messaging on it?

-- 
Felipe Sateler