On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:50:26AM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> >> It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers.
> >
> >I don't really regard that as a reasonable solution. For example, my
> >email client doesn't (as far as I know) allow adding arbitrary headers
> >to a message. I suppos
This one time, at band camp, Colin Walters wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 17:44, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers.
>
>I don't really regard that as a reasonable solution. For example, my
>email client doesn't (as far as I know) allow adding arbitrary h
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 17:44, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers.
I don't really regard that as a reasonable solution. For example, my
email client doesn't (as far as I know) allow adding arbitrary headers
to a message. I suppose you could argue that my
I'm no longer on this list, but was looking over the web archives.
Anyhow, just FYI: the GCC folks have had to block [EMAIL PROTECTED] from
sending to the GCC bug-reporting addresses because of this auto-ack problem.
What apparently has been happening is that a Debian developer will forward
a gc
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 04:32:09PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> This was prompted by the GCC GNATS system, which has dozens of PRs created
> by these ACKs.
The GCC GNATS maintainer has contacted us already about it and a solution
will definitely be worked out...
(patches welcome as always)
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:19:37AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> -quiet doesn't even mail the maintainer, unlike -maintonly - it's mostly
> intended for use by maintainers dropping comments into their own bugs.
> At the moment it still sends an ack though.
Of course, most of the maintainers using
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 07:38:28PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I think we need a better way to specify flags. Especially
> because now we've got to worry about which comes first (or does
> it matter)?
But then we need a way for these flags to be easily propagated to
Previously Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> And that flag is?
None right not, but putting flags in mail headers scales a bit better
than putting flags in email addresses. One can automate it with mutt
for example (send-hook bugs.debian.org my_hdr X-Debbug-Flags: skipack).
Wichert.
--
___
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 05:56:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:56:06PM -0600, Michael Janssen wrote:
> > I prefer this way too, but would rather the extension be the shorter
> > -quiet, which is much easier to remember and more standard than
> > -nonverbose. We co
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think we need a better way to specify flags. Especially
because now we've got to worry about which comes first (or does
it matter)?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:51:22PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Doug Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
> > issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
> > a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even
This one time, at band camp, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>Previously Colin Walters wrote:
>> This gets tricky though, because right now the BTS isn't designed to
>> do stuff depending on the submitter at all...
>
>It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers.
And that flag is?
--
[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:56:06PM -0600, Michael Janssen wrote:
> In Joerg Jaspert's email, 03-04-2002:
> > Doug Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
> > > issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
> > > a
Previously Colin Walters wrote:
> Anyways, I personally don't like them either. But there is
> probably someone out there who does, so really our only possible
> recourse is to make it an option.
Personally I dislike them.
> This gets tricky though, because right now the BTS isn't designed to
>
In Joerg Jaspert's email, 03-04-2002:
> Doug Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
> > issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
> > a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the
> > opposite). Then
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Doug Porter wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms
> > of "Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not,
> > it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:38:30PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Doug!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
> > issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
> > a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the
> > opposi
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Doug Porter wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms
> > of "Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not,
> > it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just n
Doug Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
> issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
> a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the
> opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement
>
Hi Doug!
You wrote:
> I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
> issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
> a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the
> opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement
> can mail [EMAIL PRO
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Doug Porter wrote:
> I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
> issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
> a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the
> opposite). Then those who prefer to receive a
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms
> of "Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not,
> it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide
> to do so.
I suspect there will be enough people on bot
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:18, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of
> "Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is
> fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so.
I think this has come up before, but I c
> Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of
> "Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is
> fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so.
I do. If lists are slow, I get an ACK back quickly, and won't wonder
for hours if my mail got
Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of
"Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is
fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software
25 matches
Mail list logo
