On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:43:37PM +0000, Joey Hess wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > later than today on IRC we discussed that, and _I_ find perfectly > > sensible that bugs that are opened for say 1 year, get a "ping" mail to > > the submitter to say (basically): > > But not if the bug is a security bug, and not if the bug is forwarded to > an upstream BTS, where it's still open and being discussed. Both were the > case for #320539, which I just received a ping for. > > I've now gotten a total of 2 pings for #276576, which is fairly easily > reproducible. (And quite annoyingly old for such an apparently simple > bug.) > > So I can see how this particular mass-ping would piss people off..
I'm not specifically discussing _this_ mass ping, but mass pings as a general issue, because I believe it can help. There is (especially in huge packages with a huge user base) numerous bugs the submitter did not really cared about, and it's a pain to have answers more than a week later. Now that the BTS has versionning, one can use the last version with the bug marked as "found" to know if the ping is necessary or not. If it's a BTS feature (and not done by the maintainer themselves) that would be, say, 2 mails a year (if those are triggered every 6 months without activity on the bug), IFF there has been a new upstream (aka debian revision uploads assume that if the bug isn't closed the bug is still here and the submitter won't get pinged). It seems sane to me, and will help big teams a lot. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpOGDt3y63EX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
