Re: HEADSUP: mails sent to nnn@bugs.debian.org are NOT sent to the submitter
Samuel Thibault writes ("HEADSUP: mails sent to nnn@bugs.debian.org are NOT sent to the submitter"):
> This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to
> realize that mails sent to nnn@bugs.debian.org are not sent to the bug
> submitter, and the bug tracking thus halts down completely when the
> maintainer asks for information only to the bot, and not to the human.
When I decided that debbugs should work like this:
* The email environment was very different to today;
* I hadn't properly realised that a bug is actually like a special
kind of mailing list (although I sort of got most of the way there);
* I was overly concerned that submitters ought not to be troubled by
Debian-internal communications about their bug.
Maybe this decision was right at the time, but I think it is wrong
now. I suggest we change it.
This should probably be done as follows:
* Arrange for the implicit email behaviours for the submitter to be
suppressed if the submitter is also subscribed.
* Make all submitters of new bugs be subscribed by default.
(This leaves a slight anomaly, in that someone who explicitly
unsubscribes from their own bug will still get the done email and
possibly more emails if it's reopened.)
An alternative, more comprehensive approach, would be:
* Create a new subscription option (alongside "subscribed" and "not
subscribed") equivalent to the existing submitter behavior
(basically, receives "done" and -submitter). Call it
"oldsubmitter" or something.
* Remove the implicit email behaviours for the submitter.
* Make the submitter of every existing bug be subscribed with the new
"oldsubmiter" status.
* Make all submitters of new bugs be fully-subscribed to their new
bugs.
* Have "reopen #<blah> <newemail>" reopen the bug, adjust the
recorded submitter, and then be equivalent to an attempt to
transfer subscription status from the old email to the new one
(which would require confirmation from both).
(Here The submitter is still tracked separately but no longer
receives any email solely for that reason.)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: