Bug#965085: reportbug: s to add x-debbugs-cc recipients is gone
On 16.07.2020 23.44, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Nis Martensen dixit:
>
>> - There is an excellent alternative to setting an x-debbugs-cc header
>> -- you can set it as a pseudoheader. Just add a corresponding line to
>> the pseudoheader section of your report in the message editor. No
>
> But that’s a lot to type and a weird string that invites typos.
> (I mean, sure, I’ll probably make it, but consider other users.)
If you enable the list-cc-me option, you don't have to type it. You'll
already have that line in the message editor and can add any additional
addresses you like. I really recommend using that option.
>> - If you were used to adding an x-debbugs-cc to yourself for most bugs
>> you submit, you might want to check the list-cc-me (likely together with
>> no-cc) configuration options. This now also sets the x-debbugs-cc as a
>> pseudo-header, so you can edit it in the message editor.
>
> Does reportbug --configure expose this at least?
It has been the default since November 2018, although only for users
without mta or custom smtphost; otherwise it is still commented out when
the configuration file is written. We should possibly enable it for
everybody by default in new configuration files.
> I did notice diverging behaviour between some systems; those
> installed more recently put me on X-Debbugs-Cc, but not visibly
> in the message.
Older reportbug versions already used to set X-Debbugs-Cc via a 'header'
directive in the config file. This was changed to list-cc-me in 2018.
The visibility change was just implemented and uploaded a few days ago,
so it is not surprising if you haven't encountered it yet.
> So please bring it back.
I'm quite convinced that this is not a good idea.
We'd have to add code to first identify any existing X-Debbugs-Cc
pseudoheader and then add the new recipient to it, or add a new line if
there isn't any. And we'd do this inside a message that was just edited
by the user anyway and that can easily be edited further.
If this were your developer time, would you want to spend it on that?
Reply to: