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
24 matches
Mail list logo
