Re: bugs and bug tracking

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

>
> * Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
> wrote:
> > > * Nathan Wagner (nw+pg(at)hydaspes(dot)if(dot)org) wrote:
> > > > I think I have suggested that there be a way to generate a bug id via
> > > > email. Presumably someone could just copy that email address to
> make a
> > > > not-tracked discussion get a bug id. If the system archived all the
> > > > lists (not hard) it would be possible to pull the other emails from
> the
> > > > thread into the bug (also not hard). As for marking as 'not-a-bug'
> > > > this can easily be done via whatever mechanism might be used.
> > > > Something along the lines of:
> > > >
> > > > Bug Status: not a bug
> > >
> > > If we're providing control messages through email (which I absolutely
> > > believe needs to be supported), I'd strongly prefer that they be easy
> to
> > > write. The above isn't.
> > >
> > > A good set of commands to support can be seen here:
> > >
> > > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
> > >
> > > The way debbugs currently works, which I like, is that you email
> > > NNNN-done(at)bugs(dot)debian(dot)org (NNNN being the bug #) and that
> automatically
> > > closes the bug and that email is sent to the bug reporter. Generally,
> > > this will be in a reply to an email which came from, or at least CC'd,
> > > NNNN(at)bugs(dot)debian(dot)org, so changing the address to go to -done is quite
> > > easy.
> >
> >
> > If I understand that correct, it completely breaks the current workflow
> of
> > "reply-all"? When I need to comment on a bug, isntead of hitting
> reply-all,
> > i should send it to the @bugs address? Or are you saying in those cases
> you
> > still hit reply-all but just edit the actual address?
>
> This, imv anyway, is why I need to just set it up and show people how it
> works.
>

Yes. Agreed.

> reply-all works just fine, since you like to know *exactly* how it works
> at a technical level, I just checked and the bug email address is
> automatically included in the Reply-To: header rather than being CC'd
> or From. The bug submitter's email is also in the Reply-To.
>

Well, to play the devils advocate here - we explicitly *don't* set reply-to
headers on our mailinglists, and have done many rounds of bikeshedding as
to why :P

> Please understand that, at least in my experience, Debian's workflows
> are *very* similar to ours. They just hammered out these questions
> about how to make it work over the past 15 years that we've been writing
> a database. ;)
>

Yeah, and they're just getting around to the database side now eh? :)

>
> > (FWIW, I think editing the actual address is nowhere near as easy as just
> > adding a Status: <whatever> to the message itself. It's likely easier to
> > deal with on the *server* side, but it's definitely not easier for the
> > user. Especially if you're in a MUA that doesn't let you easily edit a
> mail
> > address (hello gmail! which is quite a few of our users..)
>
> An email to control@ with

> close 1234
>

What I'd want is to just hit Reply-All, and add a keyword something like
"bug: closed" to the email, and that's it.

> My MUA makes changing an email To: line really easy and since I'm one of
> the users of that part of the system, I like it.

I know it does :) I use it for other things, but the majority of our
mailinglist users don't..

> One thing that's important to understand is that this system (in
> particular, the email interface) is *not* for our users (more
> specifically, it's not for the individuals who submit bugs via the bug
> form).

It's not for our end users, at least those parts, I agree.

But it's for all our developers, not just committers.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/