On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > wrote: > > > * Nathan Wagner (nw...@hydaspes.if.org) wrote: > > > > I think I have suggested that there be a way to generate a bug id via > > > > email. Presumably someone could just copy that email address to > make a > > > > not-tracked discussion get a bug id. If the system archived all the > > > > lists (not hard) it would be possible to pull the other emails from > the > > > > thread into the bug (also not hard). As for marking as 'not-a-bug' > > > > this can easily be done via whatever mechanism might be used. > > > > Something along the lines of: > > > > > > > > Bug Status: not a bug > > > > > > If we're providing control messages through email (which I absolutely > > > believe needs to be supported), I'd strongly prefer that they be easy > to > > > write. The above isn't. > > > > > > A good set of commands to support can be seen here: > > > > > > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control > > > > > > The way debbugs currently works, which I like, is that you email > > > nnnn-d...@bugs.debian.org (NNNN being the bug #) and that > automatically > > > closes the bug and that email is sent to the bug reporter. Generally, > > > this will be in a reply to an email which came from, or at least CC'd, > > > n...@bugs.debian.org, so changing the address to go to -done is quite > > > easy. > > > > > > 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? > > This, imv anyway, is why I need to just set it up and show people how it > works. > Yes. Agreed. > reply-all works just fine, since you like to know *exactly* how it works > at a technical level, I just checked and the bug email address is > automatically included in the Reply-To: header rather than being CC'd > or From. The bug submitter's email is also in the Reply-To. > Well, to play the devils advocate here - we explicitly *don't* set reply-to headers on our mailinglists, and have done many rounds of bikeshedding as to why :P > Please understand that, at least in my experience, Debian's workflows > are *very* similar to ours. They just hammered out these questions > about how to make it work over the past 15 years that we've been writing > a database. ;) > Yeah, and they're just getting around to the database side now eh? :) > > > (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..) > > An email to control@ with > close 1234 > What I'd want is to just hit Reply-All, and add a keyword something like "bug: closed" to the email, and that's it. > My MUA makes changing an email To: line really easy and since I'm one of > the users of that part of the system, I like it. I know it does :) I use it for other things, but the majority of our mailinglist users don't.. > One thing that's important to understand is that this system (in > particular, the email interface) is *not* for our users (more > specifically, it's not for the individuals who submit bugs via the bug > form). It's not for our end users, at least those parts, I agree. But it's for all our developers, not just committers. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
