From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Don Armstrong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug trackers Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:17:41 -0800 Message-ID: <20080226211741.GA7406@rzlab.ucr.edu> References: <20080218052546.GK13020@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20080218232829.GM5438@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20080219232732.GC18902@jax.donarmstrong.com> <20080221014954.GF23349@rzlab.ucr.edu> <47C47E2A.2080501@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204061972 25334 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2008 21:39:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:39:32 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 26 22:39:57 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JU7WG-0008ED-9Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:39:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JU7Vi-0003n6-TG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:38:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JU7BQ-0003ql-9u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:17:52 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JU7BO-0003pg-Cp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:17:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JU7BO-0003pY-9M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:17:50 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JU7BN-0002Cx-Rl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:17:50 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (archimedes.ucr.edu [138.23.92.79]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with SMTP id m1QLHho9003493 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:17:44 -0800 Original-Received: (nullmailer pid 8302 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:17:41 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C47E2A.2080501@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:90532 Archived-At: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Jason Rumney wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: >> - As Richard mentioned, we would like/need to forward all bug-reports >> sent to bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org and emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org to >> submit@emacsbugs. But since these two mailing-lists are also used >> currently for discussions, we would only want to forward those email >> whose subject doesn't start with "Re:". >> > Normally bugtrackers also hold the subsequent discussion as comments to > the original report. Why would we not want that? The problem is figuring out which report the subsequent discussion is for or whether it's a new report. If it includes the bug number in the header, everything happens automatically.[1] If it doesn't, the BTS assumes you're creating a new report. It may be that the right way to do things is to intercept new messages to bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, send them first to the bug tracking system, and send the maintainer messages to the bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org mailing list, so that replies are dealt with correctly.... but I don't think that's something that we want to set up until the maintainers are reasonably sure that debbugs is good enough for now. Don Armstrong 1: This is actually a legacy system; normally followup reports go to bugnum@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com. -- Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher. (Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added, but when nothing else can be removed.) -- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu