[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding |
Date: |
Fri, 13 May 2011 15:19:53 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> It only works thanks to the few sanity checks we perform when
>> receiving "new" bug-reports.
> Well, thank goodness you do that. Creating a new bug report each time
> someone hits `Reply' would be pretty brain-dead (i.e., not too sane).
That's only when someone hits "reply" on a message he received via Cc.
> That was my guess too. So the answer is to not remove "RE:".
> I imagine it is OK to add "OT", but not to replace "RE:" with "OT:".
Actually, what you should do for such OT posts is to not send them to
the bug-tracker, since they don't belong there.
Stefan
- bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding,
Stefan Monnier <=
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Drew Adams, 2011/05/13
- Re: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, PJ Weisberg, 2011/05/13
- RE: bug tracker woes/misunderstanding, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/05/13