Hi, On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Christian Walde <walde.christ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If emails are getting ignored, I can look to >> making the disable/unsubscribe process easier too. >> > > I hear about emails being ignored only for authors who get daily emails > with tons of PASSes and an occasional fail. There are only 59 authors who get sent PASS reports, and all would changed their preferences. As mentioned previously, the default is FAIL only. > > The new author default is just 'FAIL' (and the setting for 8579 authors), >> so I'll not bother changing that. >> > > That is good, though i'd like to see that extended to the above. > I'm not convinced it needs changing. I would rather send them just FAILs, than get further flack for send more that most authors would be happy to ignore. If they want the extra report information, they can adjust their preferences. > > Maybe if you're not willing to remove PASS entirely, we could email the > remaining ones and ask them if they really would like PASS to remain in > their options and disable it for the rest after a month? > I'm not prepared to remove it, as some authors have previously asked for it. I can only assume the authors you have spoken to are part of the 59 (60 including BooK) above. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Karen Etheridge <p...@froods.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:35:36PM +0200, Christian Walde wrote: > > The specific issue is that many authors are not aware they can > > change the settings at all, and default to using the websites > > because the emails are just daily spam. That is what they told me. > > While the footers on every email report do mention the prefs page, it > doesn't specifically say that the frequency or type of reports can be > adjusted -- so adding that information may help. > > Say, something like: > > -If you wish to unsubscribe from these notifications, or wish... > +You can also adjust the frequency and nature of these reports by going > +to https://prefs.cpantesters.org. > + > +If you wish to unsubscribe from these notifications entirely, or wish... > > I'll change that over the weekend. Thanks, saves me thinking up copy ;) > > >What would be the consensus for the default? "FAIL,UNKNOWN" or > > >"FAIL,NA,UNKNOWN" ? > > > > I would vote for all three, since ALL of them are failures, just > > from different parts of the process. > > NA reports are generally useless - usually they indicate that the smoker is > running an incompatible OS or perl version. I have no interest in > receiving lots of NA reports for Moose on perl 5.6, for example. > (Is there an example of a *useful* NA report that deserves a notification? > > Personally I would agree. My emails only send me FAILs and wouldn't want to change that. If I want to find out about others I use the website. Thanks, Barbie.
