On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:14:25PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > >> The owner of a bug (set by command "owner" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) doesn't > >> get mail sent to the bug, the same way that the package maintainer > >> does. This happened to me on bug 325704 . > > > You mean that you think the owner of a bug should get subscribed > > to the bug by default? > > This would be one way to do it. But then you don't know whether you > want to unsubscribe him if the owner changes. Another way would be > having him get the messages the same way the package maintainer > does.
Right, but generally someone who would be setting themselves as the owner of the bug is someone who is already receiving every single mail that the package maintainer gets. [Ie, it's typically used in the case where a package is maintained by multiple people and one of them takes responsibility for a specific bug.] I submit that in the general case, people who are setting owner should either already be on one of these lists or subscribed to the pts. > > Since you can subscribe to the bug so trivially, I don't see why > > you wouldn't just send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at > > the same time you sent mail to owner if you wanted the mail and > > weren't already subscribed to the bug. > > Principle of least surprise. Obviously, if you *know* of the > misfeature that you won't get copies of bug mail, you'll subscribe > and it is easy. But it is easy to just set the owner to yourself and > then miss additional info sent to the bug. Yes, but sending multiple copies to people who are subscribed to the bug, in the maintainer list, and/or subscribed to the PTS is just as bad, if not worse, since there's no way to fix it. Don Armstrong -- Any excuse will serve a tyrant. -- Aesop http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
