Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 Dowland signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 unsubscribing.
If the submitter can unsubscribe, then we haven't won anything, since
we'll still need to remember to cc them manually to request feedback
(and we won't have any way to know whether n...@b.d.o reaches them...)
I disagree.
I do not always want to reach submitter by default. Usually, when I want
that, it is because I'm replying to the initial bug report to ask for
more detailed info or to test a patch. In that case, I have the mail
around (or I retrieve it with bts --mbox show) and reply to all, also
hitting the submitter by his real email address.
The reason why I think we want subscription by default, is to be sure
that forthcoming messages, usually sent by external people (i.e. third
party triagers, other maintainers, users with patches, AOL-style
messages, etc.) get sent to who declared himself as interested in the
bug report. What I do want, and actually I think it is a shared feeling,
is that that set of interested people includes the submitter by
default. If, later on, he wants to opt out, I couldn't care less.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 other contributors. The problem is how to figure out who already gets a copy of the mails that are sent to a bug and doesn't need a second copy.[1] It certainly needs to be made easier to subscribe to a bug when you send a message to a bug, but that's a bug that is filed, and I kind of already have a plan for doing it properly. Don Armstrong 1: The current method that the BTS uses to handle recipients of a bug has only recently been abstracted out, but there are still parts of the code that specify recipients explicitely. -- It was a very familiar voice. [...] It was a voice you could have used to open a bottle of whine. -- Terry Pratchett _The Last Continent_ p270 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 “bug sprint”, I was assigned a long mozilla bug and a big part of the work was to read all messages to collect the email addresses of the users who added their experience in order to re-ping them. Although on the technical part I was not able to do anything, I thing the mass ping I made helped to re-gain the momentum that led this bug to be closed. So from the point of view of this experience, I definitely support the idea of having a mechanism to contact all the contributors to a bug, although I am unsure if it would be a good default. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 your point clear but I personnally wholeheartedly support any change that would lead to submitters being CC'ed to n...@bugs.d.o by default, with all extra care taken to allow them to opt-out. In short, suggestions made by Frans in this thread fit my opinion. Anyway, I entirely trust you to implement this The Right Way. It will then take me ages before I lose my now well established habit to Reply to All when discussing about a bug (habit that made me mail sub...@bugs.debian.org dozens of times) but I'll cope with that..:) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 messages twice if someone post messges... This is realy annoying. And of course, the BTS/PTS should support more then one E-Mail per subscribe/reporter. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strabourg/France IRC#Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ#328449886 Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 issues of forcing users to see the BTS mail exchanges, and allow the brave ones to participate without explicit subscription. It'd be nicer to be able to store this server side - having to set it up on each system would be a pain. Obviously more work for the BTS, though. Why, Kumar said, during submission which I understand that byside the pseudoheaders like Package:, Version: and Severity you use an additional PSEUDOHEADER Subscribe: yes/no and let the system know, that you want all infos about YOUR reported bug or not. This would be the best solution. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strabourg/France IRC#Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ#328449886 Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 PTS and a regulary bugreporter he has to do a daily MASS-Unsubscribe. This idea is not realy funny exspecialy I read my mails for linux4michelle on my cellphone. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strabourg/France IRC#Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ#328449886 Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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, because you are submiting a new bug to the Debian Bug-Tracking-System we will subscribe you by default to THIS bugreport. Yes Yes I like to stay informed about THIS bug. (default) no No thanks. pts I like to be subscribe to any bugs concerning THE PACKAGE for which I send THIS big I have implemented this on my own Bug-Tracking-System and it just works. The Pseudo-Header is Subscribe: [yes|no|pts] Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strabourg/France IRC#Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ#328449886 Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 duplicate mails from the BTS. But in this case, the BTS/PTS should handel at least two E-Mails or aliases, because I am subscribed with a PTS-Only E-Mail like debbts4m and get already ALL messages from a package... I have not the need to get ANY additonal messages from the BTS except if the maintainer has the need to contact me directly. And as I have written, I was several times bombed on my cellphone with messages up to 20 MByte Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strabourg/France IRC#Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ#328449886 Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 recipe which unsubscribe me IMMEDIATELY if I am hit by such messages... It is realy ANNOYING to get tonns of BTS messages on my cellphone, because my linux4michelle adress is my official business email! And of course, I DO NOT FIND IT FUNNY, if somone post a coredump, log or whatelse and it has 10 MByte and more... And under Symbian, you can not stop maildownloads you are ucked for at least an half hour. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strabourg/France IRC#Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ#328449886 Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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. Then I have to write a second procmail recipe which unsubscribe me IMMEDIATELY if I am hit by such messages... It is realy ANNOYING to get tonns of BTS messages on my cellphone, because my linux4michelle adress is my official business email! And of course, I DO NOT FIND IT FUNNY, if somone post a coredump, log or whatelse and it has 10 MByte and more... And under Symbian, you can not stop maildownloads you are ucked for at least an half hour. This all smells a bit like user error, replace user... If you don't want bug e-mails to that address, don't send them from that address. Also, unless symbian is *really* much worse than Window Mobile, then you should be able to set it to use IMAP and *NOT COLLECT* messages over a certain size. It is *REALLY* annoying having one person whine about improvements to the BTS because it means that *THEY* might have to do something. *SIGH*, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters (summary)
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 one copy message as well as the bug report. (Currently nnn-submitter@ is an alias for the submitter only.) 3) allow direct subscription of people to bugs by the BTS, report subscribers to bugs back to the BTS So, is this an accurate summary of the rough consensus: 1) mail to n...@b.d.o reaches the submitter if they are subsribed, otherwise not, 2) mail to nnn-submitter /always/ reaches the submitter (to be used to get additional information) -- and also is sent to the subscribers and maintainer (and debian-bugs-dist) 3) maintonly and quiet work as they do now. |--+-+---+---+---| | | nnn | nnn-submitter | nnn-maintonly | nnn-quiet | |--+-+---+---+---| | Submitter| ? | X | | | | debian-bugs-dist | X | X | | | | Subscribers | X | X | | | | maintainer | X | X | X | | | Bug log | X | X | X | X | |--+-+---+---+---| There is a convention on the SELinux devel list, and LKML, where anyone who responds to a thread is added to the CC list. I have grown fond of that feature; and I wonder whether #351856 ought to be extended to anyone who weighs in on a bug report. manoj -- A winner isn't nearly as afraid of losing as a loser is secretly afraid of winning. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 implementing the fast version (n...@bdo and nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it properly. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 before changing the default. Since there haven't been any, I'll be implementing the fast version (n...@bdo and nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it properly. But I think making further changes to let submitters opt out via EoC is *not* fixing it properly, and want to dissuade you from doing that :-) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 sufficient, summarising your points. You mean I have send you attachments as PM's? Maybe you where explicit in the list of recipients if I hit simply r in mutt? Normaly I do not send MONSTER attachments to somone without being asked! Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strabourg/France IRC#Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ#328449886 Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 implementing the fast version (n...@bdo and nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it properly. But I think making further changes to let submitters opt out via EoC is *not* fixing it properly, and want to dissuade you from doing that :-) 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 receiving any mail about the bug, that should be clear to the package maintainer so that the package maintainer knows that follow-up questions will not receive a reply. Maybe the best opt-out mechanism would be to clear the submitter field? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 receiving any mail about the bug, that should be clear to the package maintainer so that the package maintainer knows that follow-up questions will not receive a reply. Maybe the best opt-out mechanism would be to clear the submitter field? I think the opt-out way is to close the bug. An address that will reach the submitter most of the time, but not always, is useless IMO. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 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 nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it properly. But I think making further changes to let submitters opt out via EoC is *not* fixing it properly, and want to dissuade you from doing that :-) What I want is for submitters to be able to opt out of receiving routine mails to the bug (not by default, but by unsubscribing), but make nnn-submitter be for cases when you want to be sure the submitter gets a copy. Until I implement this, though, nnn-submitter and nnn will be synonymous. Don Armstrong -- This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related program activities, and the letter G. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 I think that if the submitter opts out of receiving any mail about the bug, that should be clear to the package maintainer so that the package maintainer knows that follow-up questions will not receive a reply. Maybe the best opt-out mechanism would be to clear the submitter field? I think the opt-out way is to close the bug. An address that will reach the submitter most of the time, but not always, is useless IMO. Which is why I proposed clearing the submitter field, so that it's obvious to the maintainer that there's no one home. Bugs don't stop existing just because the submitter doesn't want to receive further mail about them. I suppose the bug could be reparented to the maintainer of the package, but just clearing the field seems to more accurately represent the situation. If the maintainer thinks that without a submitter to talk to, there's no point in pursuing the bug, the maintainer can of course close it, but the bug system shouldn't make that determination. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it properly. Thanks a lot for changing your mind on this topic. This is a small change with a big impact on usability. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 changing the default. Since there haven't been any, I'll be implementing the fast version (n...@bdo and nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it properly. But I think making further changes to let submitters opt out via EoC is *not* fixing it properly, and want to dissuade you from doing that :-) 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 receiving any mail about the bug, that should be clear to the package maintainer so that the package maintainer knows that follow-up questions will not receive a reply. Maybe the best opt-out mechanism would be to clear the submitter field? 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 opting out of receiving mail isn't going to get substantially less mail from me, it's just going to make me work harder to send it to them by Cc:or bounce when I find their email address through the web interface. And if they make it impossible for me to send them follow-up mails (such as by rejecting the mail), I'll close their bug. We still have -maintonly for mail that /shouldn't/ go to the submitter; is there any reason not to tune -maintonly behavior to also include subscribers, if it doesn't today? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 implementing the fast version (n...@bdo and nnn-submit...@bdo always Cc: the submitter) and once I get a chance to delve into EoC (or whatever I end up using) fix it properly. Thanks a lot for changing your mind on this topic. This is a small change with a big impact on usability. Uh... I haven't changed my mind; this is always the way I anticipated it working. Don Armstrong -- Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't bet, you can't win. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 opting out of receiving mail isn't going to get substantially less mail from me, it's just going to make me work harder to send it to them by Cc:or bounce when I find their email address through the web interface. And if they make it impossible for me to send them follow-up mails (such as by rejecting the mail), I'll close their bug. I guess my point is more that it would be nice to have an explicit way for the bug reporter to say I don't care about this bug any more, please stop contacting me about it and then the maintainer can decide whether to keep the bug open or not. But maybe this is rare enough that we don't need technical support for it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 to implement the opt-out at some future time, that's trivial for me to do, but I've been loth to change the historical functionality of the BTS like this without clear consensus. 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; - implement the opt-out somewhere in the future; that could also be 'never', if the fall back of the change generates no concerns from users. I agree with those who've said that a given mail address either should, or should not, forward to the submitter. I also think it's important to fix it so n...@bugs.debian.org is an address that *does* cc: the submitter, and for messages not to the submitter we should use -maintonly or something like it. 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? -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 take the chance to
thank you for the often thankless work on debbugs. I'm sure all of us
are very grateful of what you do and have always welcomed the frequent
improvements you, together with the other debbugs contributors,
frequently deliver.
Still, I often fall in the trap of believing that most geeks has strong
opinion and I confess that, mainly due to folklore I guess, I
effectively thought your judgement was against Cc-ing (or equivalent) by
default. One of the post of yours in this thread [1] was terribly clear
and enlightening in that respect, and dissipated my wrong assumptions.
Many thanks and keep up the good work.
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/09/msg00458.html
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 quite a few times that I have received a you didn't answer mail... 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 or if the bug is being closed due to a fix or because the software was removed from Debian. I sometimes get people CCing me even when there is no need to (#545785 most recently). Given the massive thread this post generated, with a variety of opinions, I would propose: A subscribe pseudo-header for submit@ mails that has values 'yes' and 'no'. A way for people to set the default value of the subscribe pseudo-header for new bugs. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
* 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 default now; 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. If you change that, please add a new -followup@ with the old behaviour. And I think it would be wisest to change the mail the user gets to no longer point to -followup@ instead of @ [1]. As the supplier of additional information has usually no idea whether the original bug submitter wants to be informed about some hints about some secondary effects/influences, it would still be very nice to have an possibility to subscribe to a bug to get the -followup mails. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link [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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 default to always CC, nobody is going to explicitly CC submitters anymore; that's only logical, correct? - you choose not to subscribe - ergo, you will never see any requests for additional information How would you solve that problem within your proposal? 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 - the package has Maintainer set to a mailing list and you are subscribed to that list - you are subscribed to bug mails for the package through the PTS I'm sorry that you consider receiving follow-ups an inconvenience, but IMO the benefit of in general being sure submitters will get follow-ups outweighs that. It will also solve the problem that I've seen numerous times that CCs from me directly get rejected by submitters through overly aggressive spam filtering. (And yes, I do send out mails through my ISP.) Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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. - if we change the default to always CC, nobody is going to explicitly CC submitters anymore; that's only logical, correct? - you choose not to subscribe - ergo, you will never see any requests for additional information How would you solve that problem within your proposal? 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 unsubscribe will just increase the number of Maintainers not thinking of CC the submitter. I don't care if we have -submitter to reach the submitter or -nosubmitter or whatever to keep him of the loop but a way to maybe reach the submitter and depending on that is really worse than what we have now. Regards Christoph -- /\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0x0372275D \ /Campaign : GPG 4096R : 0xD49AE731 X against HTML : Debian NM / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 would be the consequence of opting out when he submitted the bug. The wording needs to be clear, then, but opting out should always be easy, or we will increase user frustration and risk the BTS being considered unsound in mail reputation services. -- Jon Dowland signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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. As a *user*, the current behaviour is less than optimal to me, and I welcome a change to the default. -- Jon Dowland signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 package or with hardware that you no longer use or have access to, so can no longer test fixes. Perhaps others have me too'd the bug, so it shouldn't just be closed (although I'd argue that submitter dropping off a bug is not reason alone to close it) -- Jon Dowland signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 will get his own response, but the person asking for follow-up information in the first place doesn't get to see that data. I understand why header mangling is a bad thing in general, and am not suggesting that this be implemented; but as bug submitters are generally people who are less knowledgeable about the BTS than are package maintainers, it usually is easier to just Cc the submitter on a question than it is to use -submitter (and deal with misdirected replies afterward). -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 least, -submitter needs to stop setting reply-to to -quiet. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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, since we'll still need to remember to cc them manually to request feedback (and we won't have any way to know whether n...@b.d.o reaches them...) Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 more information. Then there's one thing I don't get. - if we change the default to always CC, nobody is going to explicitly CC submitters anymore; that's only logical, correct? - you choose not to subscribe - ergo, you will never see any requests for additional information How would you solve that problem within your proposal? I see auto-subscribe as mainly a convenience for the submitter. It won't solve the problem you mention. If the maintainer has a question specifically to the submitter, he will have to cc him. I don't see any other solution. 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 - the package has Maintainer set to a mailing list and you are subscribed to that list - you are subscribed to bug mails for the package through the PTS Well, others might have their own reasons. I'm sorry that you consider receiving follow-ups an inconvenience, but IMO the benefit of in general being sure submitters will get follow-ups outweighs that. 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 everyone and regards me as a half-witted imbecile who is not capable of making his own decisions or anticipate their consequences. Therefore there needs to be an opt-out feature. And it should be clear how to opt out and simple to use. It will also solve the problem that I've seen numerous times that CCs from me directly get rejected by submitters through overly aggressive spam filtering. (And yes, I do send out mails through my ISP.) No it won't. If there is no simple way to opt-out, the spam filter is the only solution to work-around what some might consider an inconvenience. Cheers, harry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 snip There's also the case where you submitted a bug in a package or with hardware that you no longer use or have access to, so can no longer test fixes. Perhaps others have me too'd the bug, so it shouldn't just be closed (although I'd argue that submitter dropping off a bug is not reason alone to close it) In that case, use the 'submitter' BTS command to reparent the bug to someone relevant. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 unsubscribe will just increase the number of Maintainers not thinking of CC the submitter. 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. Don Armstrong -- Only one creature could have duplicated the expressions on their faces, and that would be a pigeon who has heard not only that Lord Nelson has got down off his column but has also been seen buying a 12-bore repeater and a box of cartridges. -- Terry Pratchet _Mort_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 everyone and regards me as a half-witted imbecile who is not capable of making his own decisions or anticipate their consequences. OTOH, the system does have to ensure consistent behavior. Having submitters CCed by default and then still needing to CC them to be sure they get your questions is not consistent behavior. It's just plain silly. Either we change the default, or we don't. If we do, some people will just have to accept the change. Therefore there needs to be an opt-out feature. And it should be clear how to opt out and simple to use. I'm not sure there should be, not for the submitter. And, as Steve Langasek rightly mentioned, the submitter _can_ be changed in the Debian BTS. It will also solve the problem that I've seen numerous times that CCs from me directly get rejected by submitters through overly aggressive spam filtering. (And yes, I do send out mails through my ISP.) No it won't. If there is no simple way to opt-out, the spam filter is the only solution to work-around what some might consider an inconvenience. You misunderstand. There's a HUGE difference between people *filtering* out unwanted mail and *rejecting legitimate mail as spam* just because of some persieved incorrectness in the mail headers that the sender has absolutely zero influence over because his ISP does not understand the extreme correctness requirements some people wish to enforce. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 out again. This seems like the best approach: * it allows for the common case expressed by package maintainers in this discussion: “I want to communicate with the bug submitter and keep a record in the bug report, using a single ‘To’ address and not needing to know anything about specific options the submitter might have chosen.” * it allows low-interest bug report traffic to go *only* to the bug report (at n...@bugs.debian.org, just like now). The submitter, like anyone else, can opt in or out of this traffic. * it requires no specific action from the submitter beyond the act of submitting a bug report at all. * it requires that we (package maintainers) get into the habit of using nnn-submit...@bugs.debian.org for the common case of discussion with the submitter, which has been independently suggested by many in this discussion as an acceptable compromise that isn't particularly onerous. -- \ “When I was a little kid we had a sand box. It was a quicksand | `\ box. I was an only child... eventually.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 at some future time, that's trivial for me to do, but I've been loth to change the historical functionality of the BTS like this without clear consensus. 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; - implement the opt-out somewhere in the future; that could also be 'never', if the fall back of the change generates no concerns from users. I agree with those who've said that a given mail address either should, or should not, forward to the submitter. I also think it's important to fix it so n...@bugs.debian.org is an address that *does* cc: the submitter, and for messages not to the submitter we should use -maintonly or something like it. How much support must be shown for such an implementation to see it done? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 now quite a few times that I have received a you didn't answer mail... 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 - maintainers - subscribers We already have -quite if we want to not mail people. Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? there are some reasons not to? Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
* 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 reports by pulling the reporters in lengthy discussions how the bug is best fixed? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 to remember something similar to this. Now, I understand Don is the main (only?) maintainer of BTS infrastructure, but I believe he would listen to us if a considerable number of people like to mail submitter by default. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away by rewarding bug reports by pulling the reporters in lengthy discussions how the bug is best fixed? 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 category of that bug. 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. Kumar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away by rewarding bug reports by pulling the reporters in lengthy discussions how the bug is best fixed? 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). Lengthy discussions are rare, people mailing n...@b.d.o believing it will reach submitters too are much more common. And no, I don't think they'd be scared or wasting their time receiving updates on their bugs. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 the submitter by default. It would be good if the submitter can unsubscribe himself from the bug report. Cheers, Benjamin signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 include a pseudo-header to subscribe to bugreports on submit? This way reportbug could include a question asking if the user wants to follow the bug closely or just fire-and-forget. Should leave the choice to the submitter and still leave the option of explicitly using nnn-submit...@b.d.o Disclaimer: I have no idea how feasible this is. I never even looked at the BTS code. Cheers [0] http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20090910142150.ga15...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de [1] http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20090910143253.ga11...@146653177.ece.utexas.edu -- Leo costela Antunes [insert a witty retort here] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
* 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 tech-savy persons are not intrested in everything. If I as tech guy send you a bug report, that is often mostly altruistic: The fix will not enter the current stable, so it will be a long time before it helps me, if it helps at all because I already know the work-around. Lengthy discussions are rare, people mailing n...@b.d.o believing it will reach submitters too are much more common. So we should punish users for incompotent developers? And no, I don't think they'd be scared or wasting their time receiving updates on their bugs. I can say that I am personally often scared with other bug reporting utilities. I will for example think twice before ever again submitting bugs to some bugzilla. It has those little checkboxes with what you want to get mail, but no description what causes what so I end up getting mails about status changes telling me nothing and of developers changing their email addresses. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 pulling the reporters in lengthy discussions how the bug is best fixed? 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 category of that bug. 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. 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 category of that bug. 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. 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. 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 issues of forcing users to see the BTS mail exchanges, and allow the brave ones to participate without explicit subscription. I recall having contacted Don about this. He was not averse to implementing this feature, but did not have sufficient time to handle it. Thanks. Kumar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away by rewarding bug reports by pulling the reporters in lengthy discussions how the bug is best fixed? 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. 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 basically stuck. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 message you get sent after submitting the bug included the fact that you had been subscribed and a link to click to unsubscribe easily. Colin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 well-written and contain a clear enough explanation for the issue. When they are, there’s rarely a need for discussion anyway. Most reports are useless junk explaining “It doesn’t work”, or simply lack sufficient information to understand the affected component. 90% of emails I write to a bug are meant for the submitter. I should not have to Cc him. Ever. This is the whole point of a bug tracking system. Debbugs is, AFAIK, the only one to require that. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
* 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 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 pulling the reporters in lengthy discussions how the bug is best fixed? 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. Often there are people subscribed to the package or the maintainer some mailing list. And then you can also subscribe to bugs, so those should always get it. Thus if someone wants to give some additional information or insight to some bug, the current n...@bugs.debian.org is exactly the right thing. It might be nice to have some additional email address that is like mailing both nnn@ and nnn-submit...@. because that is the exception. It might be an exception for the first reply (and guess what: BTS sends the maintainer a mail where the reply to is both nnn@ and the bug submitter). But for non-maintainers sending mail to a bug report, I guess it is even the default. Not the reverse. This is a major (if not _THE_ major) annoyance with the BTS. In my eyes it is one of the biggest advantages of the BTS. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available! Niklaus Wirth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 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 pulling the reporters in lengthy discussions how the bug is best fixed? 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 category of that bug. 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. Same here. As long as we give reporters the possibility to unsubscribe theirself or provide two mail aliases one which includes an auto subscription and one which doesnt (or a question in reportbug...) this should be no problem. At least I _always_ use a group-reply and never got any complains back. Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0 For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpNF3cv7Crc7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 times that I have received a you didn't answer mail... Actually, CCing the bug reporter is not enough. You have to manually set the Reply-To: field to nnn...@bugs.d.o, since otherwise, the user’s reply will go to yourself, not to the BTS. Automatically subscribing him would mostly fix that issue as well, since the BTS can add a Reply-To: header as needed. [Note that some mailers don’t even implement Reply-To: correctly, which is why tracking systems that do it right (like roundup) reforge the From: header instead.] -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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. 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 basically stuck.
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.
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.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 technical users. 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 issues of forcing users to see the BTS mail exchanges, and allow the brave ones to participate without explicit subscription. It'd be nicer to be able to store this server side - having to set it up on each system would be a pain. Obviously more work for the BTS, though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 don’t work on large packages which interest a number of people reading the mailing list, maybe you could refrain from second-guessing the needs of others. This is *especially* an issue for such packages, since people who come to help and participate in bug triage often get it wrong and reporters don’t get CCed. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 basically stuck. Incidentally, this also results in breakage with things like WNPP (which aren't really idiomatic uses of the BTS but anyway). Mostly the person who filed an ITP/RFA should get notified about activity since they are effectively the maintainer but currently that doesn't happen. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
* 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 maintainer is intrested in. This is *especially* an issue for such packages, since people who come to help and participate in bug triage often get it wrong and reporters don???t get CCed. 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 favourable. 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. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 favourable. I fail to see how it is favorable to other cases. I used to have the luxury to be able to track each and every report I received and hunt it down myself, and it was already a major issue I had with the BTS. In all cases, most bugs are easy to fix, and the difficulty is to understand the exact issue the user is facing. (Otherwise I always welcome solutions to lack of manpower, but so far people seem to think the problem will solve itself eventually.) 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 additional user input from reaching other subscribers. We’re talking, on the contrary, about preventing additional input from getting lost in the wild. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
* 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 additional user input from reaching other subscribers. We???re talking, on the contrary, about preventing additional input from getting lost in the wild. 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. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 mailing lists. Or let’s create another alias to handle such exceptions. Whatever, as long as the default behavior is made sane. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 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 basically stuck. 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 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. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 won't enable it and absent-minded maintainers will forget to Cc them. that's easy, it must be the reverse. Sane default, and simple way to override it. Sane default is: submitter should be subscribed. Easy way to override: pseudo-header to not be subscribed Easy way to override 2: let reportbug have a --do-not-subscribe-me-to-bugs--I-mean-it--I-really-want-to-be-a-PITA-for-the-maintainer for people that never remember about the pseudo-header. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug 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 default, but submitters who just want their problem fixed shouldn't be deluged with mail. Always cc'ing submitters doesn't allow for submitters to decide not to get those mail messages. The right solution (which is on my long todo list) is to: 1) allow submiters subscribe to a bug at submit@ time 2) nnn-submitter@ makes certain that the submitter gets one copy message as well as the bug report. (Currently nnn-submitter@ is an alias for the submitter only.) The main blockers for this is that it requires patches to EoC[0] which I haven't written (and various other bits of administrivia) to: 1) allow direct subscription of people to bugs by the BTS[1] 2) report subscribers to bugs back to the BTS Once that's done, we can discuss whether to make subscription to the bug for submitters the default or not; it'll of course be controllable at submit@ time no matter what is the default. Don Armstrong 0: This is what the per-bug subscription currently uses; I'm not particularly attached to one MLM or another. 1: This isn't strictly necessary, but I'd like to couple this to the submit@ ack message sent out by the BTS, so submitters can just respond to subscribe (and I'd like to skip the confirmation for GPG signed mails which have previously opted-in with that key.) -- I'd never hurt another living thing. But if I did... It would be you. -- Chris Bishop http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 a few times that I have received a you didn't answer mail... As others have stated, I think this is wrong and the submitter should receive all mail. In the mean time, those submitters who would like not to wait debbugs to do the IMHO sensible thing can do what I did: http://madduck.net/blog/2008.06.20:auto-subscribing-to-debian-bugs-i-file/ -- .''`. martin f. krafft madd...@d.o Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. -- the irish times, washington dc digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 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 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. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 default. If they want, they are free to opt unsubscribing. 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 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. But note that not everyone is using reportbug (sadly for me :) ). -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 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. 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 would be the consequence of opting out when he submitted the bug. That will only lead to frustration on the part of both users (who'll think their issue is being ignored by an arrogant developer who does not care about users) and maintainers (who'll think it's yet another fscking user can't be arsed to follow up). 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 duplicate mails from the BTS. See also my follow-up to #545996 (submitted a bit earlier by Holger). Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 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. The problem with that is that people that work on bugs don't have a consistent idea of who will get copies of emails. It makes it all confusing. I don't find the existing behavior confusing, especially since there is -submitter@ I would be fine with a change too, so that reporters are always CCd automatically. I would NOT appreciate a system in which they sometimes are and sometimes aren't. -- John Colin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 n...@bdo should reach submitters who are interested in being reached by default, but submitters who just want their problem fixed shouldn't be deluged with mail. Always cc'ing submitters doesn't allow for submitters to decide not to get those mail messages. On what % of bugs will the submitter be unnecessarily deluged with mail? This seems like an abstract hypothetical with no basis in reality at least according to any of the packages I've ever worked on. 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 at some future time, that's trivial for me to do, but I've been loth to change the historical functionality of the BTS like this without clear consensus. Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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? Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach - submitter n...@bdo should reach submitters who are interested in being reached by default, but submitters who just want their problem fixed shouldn't be deluged with mail. Always cc'ing submitters doesn't allow for submitters to decide not to get those mail messages. On what % of bugs will the submitter be unnecessarily deluged with mail? This seems like an abstract hypothetical with no basis in reality at least according to any of the packages I've ever worked on. 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 at some future time, that's trivial for me to do, but I've been loth to change the historical functionality of the BTS like this without clear consensus. 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; - implement the opt-out somewhere in the future; that could also be 'never', if the fall back of the change generates no concerns from users. Thanks a lot for considering this change, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters
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 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. Don Armstrong 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. -- There is no more concentrated form of evil than apathy. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
