Steve Langasek wrote: > 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.
A lot has been said about CCing submitters, but what about other contributors? Is there any reason someone would want to comment on a bug report and _not_ be notified of further messaging on it? -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
