Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> If I understand that correct, it completely breaks the current workflow of
> "reply-all"? When I need to comment on a bug, isntead of hitting reply-all,
> i should send it to the @bugs address? Or are you saying in those cases you
> still hit reply-all but just edit the actual address?
> (FWIW, I think editing the actual address is nowhere near as easy as just
> adding a Status: <whatever> to the message itself. It's likely easier to
> deal with on the *server* side, but it's definitely not easier for the
> user. Especially if you're in a MUA that doesn't let you easily edit a mail
> address (hello gmail! which is quite a few of our users..)
FWIW, I agree that encoding this sort of thing in the email address seems
like a pretty bad idea, because other people might reply-all to the
modified address. Consider this flow:
bug submitted
insufficiently-thought-through reply to NNNN-done with "not a bug"
submitter replies (with cc to NNNN-done) with more details
reply: oh, you're right, so we should reopen it
At least half, if not all, of the subsequent traffic in the thread is
going to get cc'd to NNNN-done, thus repeatedly causing the bug to get
"closed" prematurely.
If you want such an API, I won't stop you from using it, but I will not
use it myself. Please put in message-body commands as well.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
