Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Peter Memishian wrote: > >> >> > meem> Just the return address? Or would this also be the From address? >> > >> > Oops, bad wording on my part. This would also be the From address. The >> > changeset author would still be visible in the body of the message. >> >> While it's not a huge deal, with the current model I can quickly find >> pushes that are likely to be of interest to me (e.g., from engineers in my >> group) from the summary view of a given inbox. Further, I can send the >> person doing the push (usually the same as the author) a comment related >> to their push (e.g., "did you see this related CR?" or whatever) with a >> simple "reply" rather than having to dig into the body of the message for >> that information. So at least for me, the current model is useful, but >> perhaps I'm the only one. > > I like the current model for the same reason, but I notice that those > people who are external already get the From address rewritten.
For the sake of clarity, I'd like to note that there are 3 different notification aliases for onnv: #1 Internal, for gks #2 Internal, general #3 External, onnv-not...@opensolaris.org Mike is meaning #3 here, which is what mangles From mangling based on changeset author, etc. #1, and #2 use the email address of the user doing the push, rather than that of the changeset author. if you have '[/export/onnv-gate]' type stuff in the Subject header, you're getting notifications from an alias other than that which we're talking about. -- Rich _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
