[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 02:14:06 +0900

Drew Adams writes:

 > Thanks, but I do not understand how what I did in this case differs
 > from what I always do, except for changing "RE" to "OT".

"The doctor says, 'If it hurts when you do that, stop doing it.'"


Looking at the subject is heuristic.  Typically the rule is: the bug
number must be the first thing in the subject in exactly the same
format as the tracker produces, except for "RE:" stripping.  "OT" not
a bug number, so the tracker assumes it's new bug.

 > I just hit `Reply All', as usual.  Looking at past replies of mine,
 > I see that some of the mails I replied to were addressed to
 > address@hidden, and others were addressed to
 > <bugnb>@debbugs.gnu.org - and this within the same thread!  Why?

Why not?  It works fine as long as you don't try to be smart with the
subject line.  Some heuristic is necessary because copies of bug
messages with the generic To: address are always going to exist, and
people *will* reply to those.

 > I do not understand why some messages I receive in a thread have
 > one address and others in the same thread have the other address,

Because some are produced by the tracker itself (ie, when you are
subscribed to the bug), and others are initial reports or replies that
arrive in your inbox by some other route (self-cc of various kinds,
mailing lists, etc).

 > but `Reply All' to both kinds seems to work.

<bugnb>@ works by protocol (and is reliable).  bug-gnu-emacs@ works by
heuristic (don't push your luck!)

 > What am I missing?


reply via email to

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