* Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> [090910 22:47]:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > Given the high rate of people (at least in those that replied here)
> > in favor of adding submitter in the loop of n...@b.d.o, I think your
> > plan is very good:
> >
> > - include the submitter in n...@b.d.o by default now;
>
> Considering the fact that this thread has only been here for a few
> hours,[1] I'm going to hold off at least for a few days to entertain
> objections. But hearing none, I'll implement this when I get a chance.
If you change that, please add a new nnnn-followup@ with the old
behaviour. And I think it would be wisest to change the mail the user
gets to no longer point to nnnn-followup@ instead of nnnn@ [1].
As the supplier of additional information has usually no idea whether the
original bug submitter wants to be informed about some hints about some
secondary effects/influences, it would still be very nice to have an
possibility to subscribe to a bug to get the -followup mails.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] I think that is the biggest argument against this change: The
current behaviour is user centered and the new one will be
developer-centered, so most likely be confusing to the user.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
