Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 05:56:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:56:06PM -0600, Michael Janssen wrote: I prefer this way too, but would rather the extension be the shorter -quiet, which is much easier to remember and more standard than -nonverbose. We could even shorten it as far as -q if it doesn't conflict with something. There's already a -quiet. It doesn't mean what you think it does :) I believe it doesn't send to -bugs-dist - don't ask me how it's different from -maintonly. -quiet doesn't even mail the maintainer, unlike -maintonly - it's mostly intended for use by maintainers dropping comments into their own bugs. At the moment it still sends an ack though. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
Previously Jamie Wilkinson wrote: And that flag is? None right not, but putting flags in mail headers scales a bit better than putting flags in email addresses. One can automate it with mutt for example (send-hook bugs.debian.org my_hdr X-Debbug-Flags: skipack). Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 07:38:28PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think we need a better way to specify flags. Especially because now we've got to worry about which comes first (or does it matter)? But then we need a way for these flags to be easily propagated to addresses we currently use: [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc... Marcin -- Marcin Owsiany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://marcin.owsiany.pl/ GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:19:37AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: -quiet doesn't even mail the maintainer, unlike -maintonly - it's mostly intended for use by maintainers dropping comments into their own bugs. At the moment it still sends an ack though. Of course, most of the maintainers using it don't bother to set Reply-To: or anything so and will likely miss any reply they might get to their mail. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 04:32:09PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: This was prompted by the GCC GNATS system, which has dozens of PRs created by these ACKs. The GCC GNATS maintainer has contacted us already about it and a solution will definitely be worked out... (patches welcome as always) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
I'm no longer on this list, but was looking over the web archives. Anyhow, just FYI: the GCC folks have had to block [EMAIL PROTECTED] from sending to the GCC bug-reporting addresses because of this auto-ack problem. What apparently has been happening is that a Debian developer will forward a gcc bug to GNATS, but include the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address, then when the gcc people make a change, gnats generates an email, which goes to debbugs, which responds with information FILED blah blah blah, which goes to gnats, which generates an email... Lather, rinse, repeat. Phil -- If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.- Samuel Adams -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 17:44, Wichert Akkerman wrote: It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers. I don't really regard that as a reasonable solution. For example, my email client doesn't (as far as I know) allow adding arbitrary headers to a message. I suppose you could argue that my email client is broken (and I would probably agree), but there are a lot of people out there in a similar situation. Even if your client does allow it, it's often inconvenient. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
This one time, at band camp, Colin Walters wrote: On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 17:44, Wichert Akkerman wrote: It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers. I don't really regard that as a reasonable solution. For example, my email client doesn't (as far as I know) allow adding arbitrary headers to a message. I suppose you could argue that my email client is broken (and I would probably agree), but there are a lot of people out there in a similar situation. Even if your client does allow it, it's often inconvenient. The BTS already uses psuedo-headers; if it's smart, then it won't matter if you put your X-Debbugs-Flag: NoAck in the header or body. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg The email of the species is more deadly than the mail. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:50:26AM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers. I don't really regard that as a reasonable solution. For example, my email client doesn't (as far as I know) allow adding arbitrary headers to a message. I suppose you could argue that my email client is broken (and I would probably agree), but there are a lot of people out there in a similar situation. Even if your client does allow it, it's often inconvenient. The BTS already uses psuedo-headers; if it's smart, then it won't matter if you put your X-Debbugs-Flag: NoAck in the header or body. Actually it differentiates between pseudo-headers and headers. You could fairly easly make it consider both, though. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of Information received acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so. I do. If lists are slow, I get an ACK back quickly, and won't wonder for hours if my mail got through (flaky connection, ISP whatnot). pgppTrDzPoVES.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:18, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of Information received acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so. I think this has come up before, but I can't find it in the -devel archives. Anyways, I personally don't like them either. But there is probably someone out there who does, so really our only possible recourse is to make it an option. This gets tricky though, because right now the BTS isn't designed to do stuff depending on the submitter at all...except for one, ah, special case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of Information received acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so. I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... -- Doug Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Doug Porter wrote: I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... And I was worried that the BTS wasn't complicated enough already! -- Mike Stone -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
Hi Doug! You wrote: I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... Or how about just adding a simple procmail rule if you don't want the ACK's? -- Kind regards, +---+ | Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce | || que l'on va faire, a quoi| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bon le faire?| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pablo Picasso | +---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
Doug Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... Other way: Let it verbose and everybody who dont want it writes to -nonverbose. So you dont break with the behavior it has now. -- begin OjE-ist-scheisse.txt bye, Joerg Registered Linux User #97793 @ http://counter.li.org end -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Doug Porter wrote: Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of Information received acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so. I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... I like this. It's simpler than maintaining lists of who wants acks... -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:38:30PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: Hi Doug! You wrote: I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... Or how about just adding a simple procmail rule if you don't want the ACK's? Because the point of my original message was to not clutter everyone who doesn't want them with ACKs. For instance, users, and third-party bug tracking systems. This was prompted by the GCC GNATS system, which has dozens of PRs created by these ACKs. There's no good reason GNATS should have to know anything about Debbugs. Why send out messages with no informational content if all or most people are just going to discard them? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Doug Porter wrote: Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of Information received acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so. I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... I agree that this should be optional behaviour, if at all. In at least one circumstance, an upstream was opposed to CCing the BTS when discussing a bug, because all of those involved were spammed with the acknowledgements. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
In Joerg Jaspert's email, 03-04-2002: Doug Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... Other way: Let it verbose and everybody who dont want it writes to -nonverbose. So you dont break with the behavior it has now. I prefer this way too, but would rather the extension be the shorter -quiet, which is much easier to remember and more standard than -nonverbose. We could even shorten it as far as -q if it doesn't conflict with something. -- Michael Janssen -- Jamuraa -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG KEY 0xc00e9159 --- http://www.base0.net --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] The most overlooked advantage of owning a computer is that if they foul up there's no law against whacking them around a bit. -- EP pgpr74CnAweRm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
Previously Colin Walters wrote: Anyways, I personally don't like them either. But there is probably someone out there who does, so really our only possible recourse is to make it an option. Personally I dislike them. This gets tricky though, because right now the BTS isn't designed to do stuff depending on the submitter at all... It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:56:06PM -0600, Michael Janssen wrote: In Joerg Jaspert's email, 03-04-2002: Doug Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... Other way: Let it verbose and everybody who dont want it writes to -nonverbose. So you dont break with the behavior it has now. I prefer this way too, but would rather the extension be the shorter -quiet, which is much easier to remember and more standard than -nonverbose. We could even shorten it as far as -q if it doesn't conflict with something. There's already a -quiet. It doesn't mean what you think it does :) I believe it doesn't send to -bugs-dist - don't ask me how it's different from -maintonly. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
This one time, at band camp, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Colin Walters wrote: This gets tricky though, because right now the BTS isn't designed to do stuff depending on the submitter at all... It's simple, just stick a flag in the mail headers. And that flag is? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg A layman knows he has to kick it. An amateur knows where to kick it. A professional knows how hard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:51:22PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Doug Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement can mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on... Other way: Let it verbose and everybody who dont want it writes to -nonverbose. So you dont break with the behavior it has now. How would you combine flags? eg. -done and -nonverbose or -forward and -nonverbose, etc. (or is that -forwarded?) -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debbugs and ACK messages
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think we need a better way to specify flags. Especially because now we've got to worry about which comes first (or does it matter)? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
