> 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 email@example.com, I think your plan
>> is very good:
>> - include the submitter in firstname.lastname@example.org 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
> 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 nnn@bugs... 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?