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 n...@b.d.o, I think your plan > is very good: > - include the submitter in n...@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 n...@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. How much support must be shown for such an implementation to see it done? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
