Ok, recap-ing a bit, adding owner@BTS in the loop directly.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:09, Sandro Tosi <morph@debi...> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 15:45, Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debi...> 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 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 email@example.com 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?
sorry but I had to bring this up again.
In my opinion, and it seems it's shared among other people,
firstname.lastname@example.org should mail the submitter too. Now, I'd like to recap
some of the options that were brought in the discussion (some of them
can be mixed)
1. leave nnnnnn@ as it is now
2. nnnnn@ should mail the submitter by default
3. as 2. but adding an easy way to unsubscribe (if it's not already implemented)
4. same as 2. but adding a pseudo-header (and/or reportbug options) to
5. same as 1. but adding a pseudo-header (and/or reportbug options) to subscribe
maybe some new alias can be created: for exampel nnnnn-all@ to mail
everyone involved, or something similar to nnnn-quiet@ to implement
the current behavior is 2. passes.
IMO I strongly believe that 2. should be the default of Debian BTS;
submitters must be informed of any activities on the bugs they
submitted (to prevent losing questions/informations/requests etc etc);
and several are in favour of it.
Don, could you please share your thoughts on this?