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 linux4michelle adress is my
official business email!
I would strongly suggest using a different address for your
bug activities.
--
Jon
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
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 notify
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’s
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
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
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 avoid all
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 the
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 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
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
On 2009-09-12, Michelle Konzack linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net 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
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 subscription.
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 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
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
Am 2009-09-12 10:07:32, schrieb Philipp Kern:
On 2009-09-12, Michelle Konzack linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net 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
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
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 of
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
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org 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
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
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
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'll be
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
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
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 me
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org 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
* Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [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
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
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 don't get.
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 that
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 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
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 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
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 anything,
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:21:07 +0200
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl 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
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
because
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
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
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
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
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
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 15:45, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org 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
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
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [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
2009/9/10 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org:
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
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [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
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:21, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [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
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, please email
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
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [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
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 reports by
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 the
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [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
Quoting Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk:
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
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.
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
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
: :' :
`. `'
* Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org [090910 17:08]:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [090910 16:09]:
Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
there are some reasons not to?
But reporters are
Hi,
* Kumar Appaiah a.ku...@alumni.iitm.ac.in [2009-09-10 17:03]:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [090910 16:09]:
Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default?
there are some reasons not to?
But
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 few
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
BTS.
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
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 you
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
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [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
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
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [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
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
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.
Not
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 reporters
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 reached by
also sprach Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org [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
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org 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
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 20:46, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org 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
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
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 see this
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Colin Tuckley wrote:
Quoting Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk:
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
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
- submitter
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 22:31, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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, 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 has
83 matches
Mail list logo
