Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:56:37PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: >> On 10/03/2012 10:36 PM, Graham Percival wrote: >> >We are not going to sign up bug-lilypond to receive notices >> >automatically. Most reports will not be useful, and they will >> >screw up the automatic tools we use to keep track of whether >> >reports have been dealt with or not. >> >> I also don't think that the volume is ever going to be large enough >> to be problematic. If it _is_, then you have a different problem -- >> large numbers of bug reports that are not getting where they need >> to. > > ok, so you won't mind volunteering to take care of this with your > personal email account. > >> >If you think those notices are worthwhile, then *you* sign up to >> >receive them, and send any good bug reports to bug-lilypond. >> >> If I do this, and they _do_ prove useful, will you reconsider the >> option of automated tracking? > > No.
I have thought for a long time about whether I should comment on this. It is hard to argue with success, and Joseph did volunteer to get more involved with the bug squad in response to this posting. > You're being inconsistent. At some point, any bug report needs to > be evaluated by a human. We have enough problems finding humans > to look at the dedicated, high-quality bug reports sent to > bug-lilypond. If you don't think that looking for more bug > reports will be a lot of work, then go ahead and do it yourself. > If you *do* think that looking for bug reports will be a lot of > work, then stop trying to foist that off onto other people. I don't consider it really all that obvious not to monitor low-volume channels with possibly relevant information. However, it _does_ make sense if the monitoring is done by actual human volunteers. They can provide consistent feedback about _what_ to report upstream. They can refer users to our upstream mailing lists when their problems are better dealt with there. And, for better and worse, the _most_ important relevant information is something that we won't notice by redirecting distribution mailing lists. It is the _absence_ of people reporting the availability of new stable upstream versions, the _absence_ of announcements that upstream versions have been dealt with, the _absence_ of relevant replies to previous problem reports. For supporting a particular distribution, those non-messages are important to notice, and we won't notice them when redirecting non-traffic on our standard lists. For that, we really need people who feel responsible for actively monitoring LilyPond on a particular distribution. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond