On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > How much support must be shown for such an implementation to see it > > > done? > > > No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see > > if there was some compelling objections before changing the default. > > Since there haven't been any, I'll be implementing the fast version > > (n...@bdo and nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I > > get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it > > properly. > > But I think making further changes to let submitters opt out via EoC > is *not* fixing it properly, and want to dissuade you from doing > that :-)
What I want is for submitters to be able to opt out of receiving routine mails to the bug (not by default, but by unsubscribing), but make nnn-submitter be for cases when you want to be sure the submitter gets a copy. Until I implement this, though, nnn-submitter and nnn will be synonymous. Don Armstrong -- This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related program activities, and the letter G. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
