On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 03:36:31AM +0100, Frederik Dannemare wrote: > On Friday 17 December 2004 23:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Shouldn't this message have gone to the -submitter addresses? > Oh, boy. I seem to have screwed up a little bit here. Sorry about that > but I was under the impression that the bts would automatically include > the address of the submitter (who initially is also the owner, right?) > on follow-up messages. > I could have sworn that I in the past had automatically received copies > of mails on follow-ups to reports submitted by me, but maybe I have > been explicitly addressed as a receiver of such mails, I guess. > Upon closer reading of debian.org/Bugs/Developer it seems that the > submitter is notified automatically only with mails sent to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I would therefore always need to explicitly > address the bug submitter via either his/her own mail address or via > [EMAIL PROTECTED] when merely doing regular follow-ups, right? Right. > Btw, I forgot to ask: Besides notifying the submitter of any such future > mails (ITP "overdue" warning), should I then send a copy to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of sending it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since emails sent to -submitter are logged in the BTS, I don't think you would need to cc either -quiet or [EMAIL PROTECTED] in this case. > Anyhow, I will make sure that [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets a copy of my mail > during the weekend. I better get some sleep now. Sleep well. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
