On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 08:00:18AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > When I decided that debbugs should work like this:
>
> I think this was the right decision and still is, with this additional reason:
>
> Folks are much busier these days and ev
Hello,
On Mon, 2016-12-26 at 14:56 -0200, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> I didn't know that, fortunately i didn't ended in a situation where i needed
> feedback from the bug submitter.
>
> But the question is, shouldn't the bot forward to the submitter?
>
I've run into this problem in the past. Quick
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:16:08 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-12-27 17:56:59)
> > Current procedure of subscribing to a bug is an abomination: you need FOUR
> > mails for something that could be done by default.
> I feel you. This is why I long stopped subscribing to bu
Hello,
Ian Jackson, on Wed 28 Dec 2016 20:03:11 +, wrote:
> Even with auto-subscription by default, maintainers would still have
> to mail NNN-submitter to ask for moreinfo,
Yes. The only way to really fix the issue starting the thread is to
change nnn@'s behavior, and possibly change bots to
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: HEADSUP: mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are NOT
sent to the submitter"):
> I agree in the abstract, but I do think it's also worth noting that
> basically every other bug reporting system I'm aware of defaults to
> sending all updates to
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:16:08PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> 3. or an "autosubscribe to all submitted bugs" or "autosubscribe to all bugs
> one contributed to" feature which prevents spam by only subscribing me to
> bugs that I write signed emails to
Even if other ideas are rejecte
Hi,
Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-12-27 17:56:59)
> Current procedure of subscribing to a bug is an abomination: you need FOUR
> mails for something that could be done by default.
I feel you. This is why I long stopped subscribing to bugs I file. The
ping-pong is too bothersome for me. Now I just k
Harlan Lieberman-Berg writes:
> One model is that the submitters are purely "users" --- people who may
> not have an interest in the inner workings of a technical issue but
> simply want it fixed. These people are best served by the current
> behavior of debbugs: they get mail specifically direc
Ian Jackson writes:
> * I was overly concerned that submitters ought not to be troubled by
>Debian-internal communications about their bug.
I think part of the confusion and dissent here is that there are two
intersecting-but-non-equal mental models of who the submitters are that
lead to two
Fully support Ian's proposed change.
I've been around Debian for 16 years and I STILL find this behaviour irritating
because it is contrary to my expectations.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 11:03:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes ("HEADSUP: mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are NOT
> sent to the submitter"):
> > This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to
> > realize that mails
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> When I decided that debbugs should work like this:
I think this was the right decision and still is, with this additional reason:
Folks are much busier these days and every extra unnecessary email
takes extra time and brain space that could b
Paul Wise writes ("Re: HEADSUP: mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are NOT sent
to the submitter"):
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to
> > realize that mails sent t
Samuel Thibault writes ("HEADSUP: mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are NOT
sent to the submitter"):
> This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to
> realize that mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are not sent to the bug
> submitter, and the
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to
> realize that mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are not sent to the bug
> submitter, and the bug tracking thus halts down completely when the
> maintainer asks for in
Samuel Henrique writes:
> I didn't know that, fortunately i didn't ended in a situation where i
> needed feedback from the bug submitter.
>
> But the question is, shouldn't the bot forward to the submitter?
It does, if you ask it to do so by mailing
nnn-submit...@bugs.debian.org instead. Please s
I didn't know that, fortunately i didn't ended in a situation where i
needed feedback from the bug submitter.
But the question is, shouldn't the bot forward to the submitter?
Samuel Henrique
2016-12-26 14:29 GMT-02:00 Samuel Thibault :
> This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers
Samuel Thibault wrote on Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 17:29:53 +0100:
> This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to
> realize that mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are not sent to the bug
> submitter, and the bug tracking thus halts down completely when the
> maintainer asks fo
This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to
realize that mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are not sent to the bug
submitter, and the bug tracking thus halts down completely when the
maintainer asks for information only to the bot, and not to the human.
I don't know how
19 matches
Mail list logo