bug-bash
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

the bug mailing lists are open bug reporting lists (Re: Multi-word match


From: Bob Proulx
Subject: the bug mailing lists are open bug reporting lists (Re: Multi-word matching in history expansion)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:42:19 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

The Wanderer wrote:
> (And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still* got
> an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one.

Even though it is not an official standard the best ad-hoc standard is
to set "Mail-Followup-To: " to instruct mailers where to send followup
messages.  It would be beneficial if you added that header to your
mail messages because then mailers could do the right thing
automatically.

I saw that you had set Reply-To: back to the mailing list and I do not
know why that reply message did not respect your reply-to header.
For what it is worth I think it should have done so.

> Is there any particular reason why you ignored my explicit request
> to not get both responses?)

First let me say thanks for being so understanding of the time and
energy that volunteers and maintainers devote to this project.  We
make a lot more forward progress when we work together instead of
fighting among ourselves.

And now a few words about the GNU bug reporting mailing lists...

The GNU bug mailing lists are open and there is no expectation that
bug reporters are subscribed in order to post bug reports.  This makes
bug reporting mailing lists fundamentally different than discussion
mailing lists where everyone is expected to be subscribed.  In a
discussion mailing list always sending to the mailing list is usual
and private replies done when purposefully taking discussion off of
the public list.  But in a bug reporting mailing list where bug
reporters usually report bugs without being subscribed then it is
usual to followup both to the mailing list and to the original sender.

A problem that I frequently see is that a bug reporter will post a
problem to a bug reporting mailing list.  I can verify that the poster
is not subscribed and no indication was made that they read the
mailing lists through any other interface.  Someone takes the time to
post a nicely worded reply that exactly addresses their issue but
sends it only to the mailing list.  Now I am in a quandary.  I know
with a high degree of confidence that the original poster did not see
any response to their bug.  As far as they are concerned their bug
went into a black hole.  That is bad.  How should I respond?  Should I
forward the discussion to the original poster and also to the mailing
list so that the action is coordinated with the group and someone else
does not do the same thing again?  Do I just replicate the discussion
in my own words and act as if I did not see it and simply respond to
the original poster?  There is no easy solution in that case.  Better
if the original bug reporter can get the responses directly.

The guideline I use for initial responses is to group reply so that
messages go to both the original poster and to the bug list.  This is
almost always the best general course of action.  Anything other than
this would require additional information and resources.  Then on
subsequent messages I trim off all addresses except the bug list and
the initial bug reporter.  The responders obviously were subscribed in
order to have read and responded to the message and only the original
poster is unknown whether they are subscribed or not.  (Unless the
original poster included a Mail-Followup-To: header and if so then the
mail client will respect it and do what it instructs, usually directly
back to the mailing list, in which case I have nothing to trim.)

If I happen to recognize that the poster is subscribed then I trim off
that address from the response as well.  But I think this can at best
be viewed as an extra-credit and opportunistic nicety.  It definitely
takes more time and effort and particularly for busy maintainers I
would rather see them devote their energy to working on the project
code rather than spending a large amount of time on mailing list
niceties.  If we can help them out a little here then everyone wins.

Bob




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]