* Don Armstrong (22-07-2007): > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote: >> * Don Armstrong >> * Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:29:25 -0700 >> > If you're interested in the discussion around this bug, you should >> > subscribe to it. >> >> 1. There's a new feature -- subscribing. > > It's actually not that new; Joachim and Pascal did the l.d.o side and > I did the b.d.o side over two years ago now.
Well, i meant -- you are pointing on this feature, that's why i'm concluding, that somebody (still) don't know about it. >> pros: while done, it's easy to follow bug's messages >> cons: >> - handled by another party: l.d.o; unneeded complexity >> - subscribing have 2 stages with total 2/2 messages sent from >> both sides >> - unsubscribing -- the same > > This is a requirement for any subscription system, even if a message > to a bug automatically causes you to be subscribed, as From is trivial > to forge. But what if one isn't bound to the "subscription system"? > I am interested in perhaps allowing people to confirm a subscription > once, and then be able to subscribe to any bug using that same address > without further confirmation (or perhaps with a GPG signature), but to > date the code has not been written. This isn't flexible (storage/dynamic management of GPG, etc). >> 2. Thus, here are two sides >> - BTS maintainer >> - package maintainer >> and they have different experience and goals, while trying to >> understand each other. > > In this particular instance, I'm sitting in both positions, because > this bug is against debbugs, and I am both a BTS maintainer as well as > a maintainer of debbugs. I assume, that something has higher priority here. Your way of replying suggests the first choice. >> > I'm open to adding a header to messages so that you can easily >> > indicate your desire to be subscribed to a bug, and I probably >> > will do that as soon as it's possible to get the subcription >> > information off of l.d.o. >> >> I think BTS's `reply-to' rules must not be implied, but based on >> some policy. That policy can be delivered from either `Cc', >> `Mail-Followup-To' or both. > > The reply-to: rules are actually kind of silly, and probably will be > junked once its easier to subscribe to bugs without confirmation. > Plus, it's always appropriate for people to cull the Cc: list. Please, tell me what do you think about scheme, i've described in message to Josseline. I just need a wise opinion, because i will implement it anyway. Thanks. ____ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
