From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pretest, devel and bug lists Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:01:04 -0400 Message-ID: <87skw3b5tb.fsf@red-bean.com> References: Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1211936487 18880 80.91.229.12 (28 May 2008 01:01:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 01:01:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Glenn Morris , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 28 03:02:06 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 1K1A3J-00076k-KK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 03:02:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51809 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1A2Y-00029v-FG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 21:01:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1A2T-00029h-VJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 21:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1A2Q-00029V-Ex for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 21:01:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52133 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1A2Q-00029S-8u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 21:01:10 -0400 Original-Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com ([66.146.193.61]:56768) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K1A2M-0007tv-O4; Tue, 27 May 2008 21:01:06 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55127 helo=floss ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K1A2K-0004xq-SU; Tue, 27 May 2008 20:01:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 27 May 2008 20:49:07 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) 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:97850 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> If things sent to emacs-pretest-bug are being fed into a bug tracker >> and sent to bug-gnu-emacs, then I would say there is no need for >> copies to _also_ be sent to emacs-devel. > > AFAIK messages sent to bug-gnu-emacs pass through the bug-tracker, but > not messages sent to emacs-pretest-bug (which are redirected to > emacs-devel instead). One technique is for automated mails (e.g. those emitted by a bug tracker, say, or by a commit hook) to go to their own lists (e.g. bug-gnu-emacs@, emacs-commit@), but for any *replies* to such mails to be directed to the main development list, emacs-devel@. That is, the automated systems set the "Reply-to:" header to emacs-devel@, so that any followup discussion to a bug report or a commit happens on the development list, where it belongs. At the same time, the development list not distracted with those reports and commits that never spark a thread (while those who want to can subscribe to the appropriate lists, to see and possibly react to the automated mails). Whether this is appropriate for a given automated mail source depends on the source. Certainly, there may be some sources that should be sending directly to emacs-devel@. I just offer this technique as something to consider when all-or-nothing answers don't seem quite right. In my experience, doing it at least for bug-tracker emails and for commit mails works very well; YMMV. (Finally, for those who believe Chip Rosenthal was right when he wrote http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, don't worry: this technique doesn't contradict his recommendations. The sender is always free to set Reply-to however it wants, and in this case the sender is the automated system.) -Karl Stefan Monnier writes: >> If things sent to emacs-pretest-bug are being fed into a bug tracker >> and sent to bug-gnu-emacs, then I would say there is no need for >> copies to _also_ be sent to emacs-devel. > > AFAIK messages sent to bug-gnu-emacs pass through the bug-tracker, but > not messages sent to emacs-pretest-bug (which are redirected to > emacs-devel instead). > > I think this should be changed so that messages sent to > emacs-pretest-bug do not go to emacs-devel any more but go to the > bug-tracker instead. > >> I also don't see the need for tracker control messages to be sent to >> bug-gnu-emacs, but I'm less sure about that. > > Yes, I'm also ambivalent about it. I think I'd be happy to get rid of them. > >> It would also be nice if there was a statement as to whether this >> tracker is now offical and we should all start learning how to use it, >> or if it is still being tested. > > It is official in the sense that you should all learn to use it. > > > Stefan