* Don Armstrong (Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:53:11 -0700) > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote: >> * Don Armstrong (22-07-2007): >> > 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 don't understand what you're asking.
To be bound to "subscription system" means being subscribed to mailing list, receiving bunches of messages, resorting them locally, etc.. After that, to reply only "as i wish", even somebody asked to make a courtesy copy. BTS have this system, and you are bound to it, because so far i saw no option in your propositions. Was it hard to implement or maintain? Does it mean no other option exists and nobody willing to try it? I have no such experience and, i think, i can prove, that there are other more productive and flexible means. Thus this misunderstanding. >> > 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). > > This objection makes no sense. OK. Flexible is, when *anybody* can make things *easily*. Asking for a ticket once and having bug id is easy, also no stupid spam. Everybody automaticaly in Cc list, until it is useful for *them*. >> > 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 don't understand what you're asking here either. You fail to understand your fellow developer. "XXXXX-all" is the same "insanely long Cc list" below and have nothing to do with management of the will of every ocasional and/or (un)experienced participant. >> > 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. > > The scheme that you've described (from what I can parse of it) is not > an improvement on the existing system. It involves carrying around > insanely long Cc: lists and doesn't allow the expression of any > preference about bug correspondence. > > While the situation currently is suboptimal, I'm not particularly > interested in coding stopgap measures when a final solution is the > right way forward. I was asking about opinion, not coding, but yet have received only misunderstanding. > > Don Armstrong > > -- > "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. > For those who do not, none is possible." > OK, whatever. After what i've seeing about reportbug-ng, policy bureaucracy, i just don't care. I thougth, at least bug reporting is a rock-solid thing. But it only turned to be still maintained best practice. It's a pitty, that effort to understand me was so miserable. ____ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
