On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:13:49AM +0200, Michelle Konzack
wrote:
> It is realy ANNOYING to get tonns of BTS messages on
> my cellphone, because my adress is my
> official business email!
I would strongly suggest using a different address for your
bug activities.
--
Jon Dowland
signatur
Le Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:38:47PM -0400, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
>
> 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?
Hi all,
during last year
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> 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?
That's not really the reason why we don't already noti
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:59PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 17:23 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Conceptually, what "we" want is trivial: we want submitter to be
> > subscribed (in the sense of "bts subscribe") by default. If they want,
> > they are free to opt uns
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
Steve Langasek writes:
> I don't think this level of opt-out achieves anything. Perhaps owing to
> the existing BTS handling, I'm very conscious of whether a given message
> I write to the BTS should be seen by the submitter (and the answer is
> almost always yes). A submitter opting out of rec
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 12 septembre 2009 à 10:07 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > 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
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see
> >> if there was some compelling objections before changing the de
Le samedi 12 septembre 2009 à 10:07 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> 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 n
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As a general principle I think it should always be possible for people
>> to opt out of mail from any sort of automated or semi-automated system.
>> I think supporting opt-out is a good idea. But I think that
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 wa
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As a general principle I think it should always be possible for people to
> opt out of mail from any sort of automated or semi-automated system. I
> think supporting opt-out is a good idea. But I think that if the
> submitter opts out
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> 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
Am 2009-09-12 10:07:32, schrieb Philipp Kern:
> On 2009-09-12, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > And as I have written, I was several times bombed on my cellphone with
> > messages up to 20 MByte
>
> And I was bombed with six from you, where I assume that one would've been
> sufficient, summarisi
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 obje
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
Hi,
I have been looking at the thread, and here is what I think
I saw as the emerging consensus:
1) allow submiters subscribe to a bug at submit@ time
(perhaps the default being to subscribe, and unsubscription an
option)
2) nnn-submitter@ makes "certain" that the submitter gets
On 12 Sep 11:13, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2009-09-10 17:23:32, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> > We currently even have procmail recipe to automatically subscribe upon
> > BTS ack receipt, that should be the default and the recipes reverted to
> > unsubscribe by default who doesn't want subscript
On 2009-09-12, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> And as I have written, I was several times bombed on my cellphone with
> messages up to 20 MByte
And I was bombed with six from you, where I assume that one would've been
sufficient, summarising your points.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUB
Am 2009-09-10 21:35:02, schrieb Frans Pop:
> IMO opting out should mainly be for the case where the submitter is also
> receiving follow-ups because he's a member of the packaging team and thus
> already subscribed to the maintainer mailing list or PTS for the package.
> I.e. to avoid getting du
Am 2009-09-10 11:46:44, schrieb Russ Allbery:
> I would ideally like to see this implemented by having reportbug ask
> whether they want to be subscribed, perhaps with a default of yes, rather
> than just subscribing them and making them opt-out.
At the very las in reportbug:
Dear Bug-Reporter,
Am 2009-09-10 17:23:32, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> We currently even have procmail recipe to automatically subscribe upon
> BTS ack receipt, that should be the default and the recipes reverted to
> unsubscribe by default who doesn't want subscription.
Then I have to write a second procmail r
Am 2009-09-10 16:05:19, schrieb Colin Tuckley:
> That is exactly what I was going to suggest - with the addition that
> the message you get sent after submitting the bug included the fact
> that you had been subscribed and a link to click to unsubscribe
> easily.
and if someone is subscribed to th
Hi Mark, Kumar and *,
Am 2009-09-10 16:25:04, schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:04:19AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > To be more specific, we should have a pseudo-header like
> > Subscribe: yes
> > which would allow me to subscribe to the bug during submission. This
> > way, we av
Am 2009-09-10 16:09:02, schrieb Sandro Tosi:
> Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach
>
> - submitter
> - maintainers
> - subscribers
Is this not already the case?
Exspecialy I am subscriber to the PTS and 1200 Packages I have installed
on any of my systems and since some times I get all me
Quoting Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org):
> 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.
Not sure that's really needed as you made
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 o
Don Armstrong writes:
> The complete plan involves having nnn-submitter@ changing from being
> an alias of the submitter's e-mail address to behaving like nnn@, with
> the addition of making sure that the submitter gets a copy. See my
> mails on this subject.
Thanks for pointing this out again.
Harald Braumann wrote:
> While I personally like to be kept updated on all bugs I file and would
> welcome an auto-subscribe feature, one has to accept the fact that
> others might not. I always find it very irritating if The System
> forces things on me because it thinks it knows what's best for e
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Christoph Egger wrote:
> I'm seeing exactly this problem with the proposal. IMHO we really
> need a way to definitely get the submitter and we need to use that
> whenever we need a answer. subscribing the submitter to
> ???...@bugs.d.o by default and giving the option to unsubs
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:44:56PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:21:07AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > As I've mentioned before, IMO there is only one valid
> > reason to unsubscribe from BRs after we change the
> > default, and that is if you *already* receive follow-ups
> >
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:21:07 +0200
Frans Pop wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > I personally prefer not to be CCed on bug reports. I don't want to
> > recieve any mail about a bug unless it is asking me to supply more
> > information.
>
> So you *do* want to be CCed if the maintainer needs more infor
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 17:23 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Conceptually, what "we" want is trivial: we want submitter to be
> subscribed (in the sense of "bts subscribe") by default. If they want,
> they are free to opt unsubscribing.
If the submitter can unsubscribe, then we haven't won anyth
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 18:25 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> That is the thread at large. Currently it was about why nnn-quiet is no
> suitable workaround if the followup address for users (nnn@) would suddenly
> also mail users.
Speaking of -quiet, I'd be happy to see that die. Or at the very le
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 02:15:43PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I don't find the existing behavior confusing, especially since there
> is -submitter@
The problem with the -submitter@ mail alias is that it does not get
changed in the forward, so that when a submitter hits 'reply' in his
MUA, he
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:21:07AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, IMO there is only one valid
> reason to unsubscribe from BRs after we change the
> default, and that is if you *already* receive follow-ups
> because
snip
There's also the case where you submitted a bug in a pac
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:40:21AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> [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.
I don't agree with the positioning here.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:35:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I don't think it should be too easy to opt-out. We should
> not get in a situation where we no longer CC a submitter
> because we assume he/she is subscribed, while the
> submitter will never get the mails because he did not
> realize tha
Frans Pop schrieb:
> Paul Wise wrote:
>> I personally prefer not to be CCed on bug reports. I don't want to
>> recieve any mail about a bug unless it is asking me to supply more
>> information.
>
> So you *do* want to be CCed if the maintainer needs more information.
>
> Then there's one thing I
Paul Wise wrote:
> I personally prefer not to be CCed on bug reports. I don't want to
> recieve any mail about a bug unless it is asking me to supply more
> information.
So you *do* want to be CCed if the maintainer needs more information.
Then there's one thing I don't get.
- if we change the de
* Don Armstrong [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
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to
> ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else
> he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now
> quite a few times t
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:47:22PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: Not to mention the multiple messages erroneously describing my
> position on the matter without allowing time for a response, or
> bothering to read the logs of the relevant bugs.
While I hope I'm not in that author set :-), let m
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
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 22:31, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, David Nusinow wrote:
>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> >On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> >>I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the
>> >>different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, David Nusinow wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >>I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the
> >>different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
> >>
> >>Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach
> >>
> >
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> Quoting Mark Brown :
>
> >What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to
> >subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue
> >with confusing less technical users.
>
> That is exactly what
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote:
I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the
different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach
- submitter
n...@bdo should reach submitters who are inte
Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That should probably be something that would fly for me actually. and
>> you could make reportbug take an option to add some kind of pseudo
>> header so that subscribing is not done for the rare cases when sender
>> doesn't want to be subscribed.
>
> I would ideally like to
On Thu,10.Sep.09, 09:32:55, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
>
> Just my view, I try to remember to Cc the reporter, but I'd much
> rather prefer being subscribed to bugs as I report them.
Or maybe make it possible to subscribe by just replying to the ACK mail.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it si
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:32:09PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> 2009/9/10 Josselin Mouette :
> > Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:09 +0200, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
> >> I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the different
> >> direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
> >
>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 20:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>>> Conceptually, what "we" want is trivial: we want submitter to be
>>> subscribed (in the sense of "bts subscribe") by default. If they want,
>>>
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Conceptually, what "we" want is trivial: we want submitter to be
>> subscribed (in the sense of "bts subscribe") by default. If they want,
>> they are free to opt unsubscribing.
> That should probabl
also sprach Samuel Thibault [2009.09.10.1545 +0200]:
> I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to
> ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else
> he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now
> quite a few times that
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the
> different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
>
> Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach
>
> - submitter
n...@bdo should reach submitters who are interested in being reach
Ok, recap-ing a bit, adding ow...@bts in the loop directly.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:09, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 15:45, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to
>> ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explici
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:58:30PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Leo costela Antunes, le Thu 10 Sep 2009 16:52:43 +0200, a écrit :
> > Why not include a pseudo-header to subscribe to bugreports on submit?
>
> I thought about that too, but that doesn't solve the original problem:
> clueless repor
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he
> > should mail nnn-silent or whatever, because that is the exception.
>
> Full ACK.
>
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 18:25 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> That is the thread at large. Currently it was about why nnn-quiet is no
> suitable workaround if the followup address for users (nnn@) would suddenly
> also mail users.
Then use nnn-maintonly@, which will reach the PTS and mai
* Josselin Mouette [090910 18:11]:
> > Otherwise most packages have some crowd of people following the package
> > or even only specific bugs. Then additional user input not reaching them
> > is losing valuate chances for additional information.
>
> We???re not talking about preventing additional
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 17:55 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> If all one does with the bugs is collecting them, hoping upstream will fix
> them (for which one does not even have the manpower to check oneself)
> or the submitters lose interest, then the current system is of course
> not fa
* Josselin Mouette [090910 17:26]:
> Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 17:19 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> > > When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he
> > > should mail nnn-silent or whatever,
> >
> > That is only true for very small packages where only the mainta
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Not the reverse. This is a major (if not _THE_ major) annoyance with the
> BTS. FWIW this is a long discussed issue, and the BTS maintainers do not
> share this opinion (that mailing @ should also mail the submitter)
> so we're
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 17:19 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> > When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he
> > should mail nnn-silent or whatever,
>
> That is only true for very small packages where only the maintainer is
> intrested in.
Since apparently y
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:04:19AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to
> > subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue
> > with confusing less te
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he
> should mail nnn-silent or whatever, because that is the exception.
Full ACK.
> Not the reverse. This is a major (if not _THE_ major) annoyance with the
> B
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 15:45 +0200, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to
> ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else
> he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now
> quite a
Hi,
* Kumar Appaiah [2009-09-10 17:03]:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]:
> > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
> > > there are some reasons not to?
> >
> > But reporters are sacrifing some of
* Pierre Habouzit [090910 17:08]:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]:
> > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
> > > there are some reasons not to?
> >
> > But reporters are sacrifing some of their t
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:58 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> So we should punish users for incompotent developers?
Whoa? Informing users is punishing them?
This whole thread is a complete WTF, as were previous discussions on the
topic.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 15:43 +0100, Mark Brown a écrit :
> What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to
> subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue
> with confusing less technical users.
No, it wouldn’t be useful.
Not all reports are well
Leo costela Antunes, le Thu 10 Sep 2009 16:52:43 +0200, a écrit :
> Why not include a pseudo-header to subscribe to bugreports on submit?
I thought about that too, but that doesn't solve the original problem:
clueless reporters won't enable it and absent-minded maintainers will
forget to Cc them.
Quoting Mark Brown :
What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to
subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue
with confusing less technical users.
That is exactly what I was going to suggest - with the addition that
the message you get sent a
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]:
> > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
> > there are some reasons not to?
>
> But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our
> distribution better.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is subjective. I know of several bug reporters who would either
> > be happy to see that their bug is being dicussed/attended to, or even
> > be able to pariticipate in the fixing efforts if their technical
> > knowledge falls in
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:32:55AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our
> > distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away
> > by rewarding bug repo
* Sandro Tosi [090910 16:35]:
> Yes, I do believe that submitters should be informed of any activity
> on their bugs (to know they're not ignored, to contribute to the tech
> discussion (not every reported is a non-tech guy), etc).
Not everyone is a non-tech guy, but even most tech-savy persons a
Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
> there are some reasons not to?
As raised by Berhard[0], this could bother some reporters, OTOH - as
Kumar said[1] - other posters would actually like being more closely
involved with their bugs.
Why not incl
Am Donnerstag, den 10.09.2009, 16:09 +0200 schrieb Sandro Tosi:
> Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach
>
> - submitter
> - maintainers
> - subscribers
>
> We already have -quite if we want to not mail people.
>
> Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
Yes, plea
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:21, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]:
>> Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
>> there are some reasons not to?
>
> But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our
> distribution better. Do you reall
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]:
> > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
> > there are some reasons not to?
>
> But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our
> distribution better.
2009/9/10 Josselin Mouette :
> Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:09 +0200, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
>> I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the different
>> direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
>
> Because the debbugs maintainer doesn’t want it.
Yes, I seemed to remem
* Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]:
> Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
> there are some reasons not to?
But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our
distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away
by rewarding bug reports by pul
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:09 +0200, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
> I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the different
> direction: why not mailing the submitter by default?
Because the debbugs maintainer doesn’t want it.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recomm
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 15:45, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to
> ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else
> he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now
> quite a few
Hello,
I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to
ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else
he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now
quite a few times that I have received a "you didn't answer" mail...
Samuel
86 matches
Mail list logo
