Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

>> I have another request about the messages that Bugzilla generates: could
>> they have the name of the person responsible for the new bug, comment,
>> etc., in the From header (keeping the gcc-bugzilla address there as the
>> email address, though From can contain multiple addresses) so it's visible
>> on the list who is commenting on bugs?
>
> It's already *in* the actual text, but i'll look into it.
> It might take me a day or so to get it done.

Yes, I would really like this too. We recently had a number of people 
coming into the project and when we decided we wanted to give them GNATS 
write access, I kept an eye on what they did for a while. That's 
impossible if the name of the one changing something in the database 
doesn't appear in the From: header. (I.e.: it _is_ possible, but I would 
again have to look at all mails, which I don't want and can't).

W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 05:42  PM, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:

>
>>> I have another request about the messages that Bugzilla generates: 
>>> could
>>> they have the name of the person responsible for the new bug, 
>>> comment,
>>> etc., in the From header (keeping the gcc-bugzilla address there as 
>>> the
>>> email address, though From can contain multiple addresses) so it's 
>>> visible
>>> on the list who is commenting on bugs?
>>
>> It's already *in* the actual text, but i'll look into it.
>> It might take me a day or so to get it done.
>
> Yes, I would really like this too. We recently had a number of people
> coming into the project and when we decided we wanted to give them 
> GNATS
> write access, I kept an eye on what they did for a while. That's
> impossible if the name of the one changing something in the database
> doesn't appear in the From: header. (I.e.: it _is_ possible, but I 
> would
> again have to look at all mails, which I don't want and can't).

Actually, we support watching.
You can do the following:

Watch the user (look at your email preferences).
Bugzilla adds a header labeled X-Bugzilla-Reason, it will be set to 
"Watched" for these emails.
Filter on that header.
>

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

> > Yes, I would really like this too. We recently had a number of people
> > coming into the project and when we decided we wanted to give them
> > GNATS write access, I kept an eye on what they did for a while. That's
> > impossible if the name of the one changing something in the database
> > doesn't appear in the From: header. (I.e.: it _is_ possible, but I
> > would again have to look at all mails, which I don't want and can't).
> 
> Actually, we support watching.

But that get's me back to the orginal problem: too much mail. I'm not 
subscribed to any of the lists. I usually pick from the online archives 
what I'm interested in (that being mail being sent through GNATS/bugzilla, 
or directly to the lists).

I think there would be many good reasons to be able to actually see who 
sent what through bugzilla.

W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/

At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Daniel Berlin]

I have changed gcc-bugs's email preferences so it only gets mail about 
the following:

"New Comments are added"
"Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes"
"The bug is resolved or verified "
"The bug is in the unconfirmed state"

The following will not cause gcc-bugs to receive mail:
"New Attachments are added"
"Keywords field changes"
"CC field changes"
"Any field not mentioned above changes"


If we want to make decisions that we want certain types of mail to go 
to certain lists or something, we can.

--Dan

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[H. J. Lu]

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 05:06:54PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I have changed gcc-bugs's email preferences so it only gets mail about 
> the following:
> 
> "New Comments are added"
> "Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes"
> "The bug is resolved or verified "
> "The bug is in the unconfirmed state"
> 
> The following will not cause gcc-bugs to receive mail:
> "New Attachments are added"

Attachment may be more useful than comment.


H.J.

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 05:10  PM, H. J. Lu wrote:

> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 05:06:54PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> I have changed gcc-bugs's email preferences so it only gets mail about
>> the following:
>>
>> "New Comments are added"
>> "Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes"
>> "The bug is resolved or verified "
>> "The bug is in the unconfirmed state"
>>
>> The following will not cause gcc-bugs to receive mail:
>> "New Attachments are added"
>
> Attachment may be more useful than comment.

Comment has to be there, or else followups won't ever appear on the 
list.

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> The following will not cause gcc-bugs to receive mail:
> "New Attachments are added"
> "Keywords field changes"
> "CC field changes"
> "Any field not mentioned above changes"
> 
> 
> If we want to make decisions that we want certain types of mail to go 
> to certain lists or something, we can.

We could resurrect gcc-prs for the above (except CC field changes - I
really don't think that's something for the lists to care about); I don't
know how the system worked that ensured that gcc-prs would accept mail
from GNATS but not other mail.  But if so, please have it just receive
this mail and not duplicates of what goes to gcc-bugs.

I have another request about the messages that Bugzilla generates: could
they have the name of the person responsible for the new bug, comment,
etc., in the From header (keeping the gcc-bugzilla address there as the 
email address, though From can contain multiple addresses) so it's visible 
on the list who is commenting on bugs?

(If the name isn't available, the email address inside quotes would
suffice.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 05:25  PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2003, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>> The following will not cause gcc-bugs to receive mail:
>> "New Attachments are added"
>> "Keywords field changes"
>> "CC field changes"
>> "Any field not mentioned above changes"
>>
>>
>> If we want to make decisions that we want certain types of mail to go
>> to certain lists or something, we can.
>
> We could resurrect gcc-prs for the above (except CC field changes - I
> really don't think that's something for the lists to care about); I 
> don't
> know how the system worked that ensured that gcc-prs would accept mail
> from GNATS but not other mail.  But if so, please have it just receive
> this mail and not duplicates of what goes to gcc-bugs.
>
> I have another request about the messages that Bugzilla generates: 
> could
> they have the name of the person responsible for the new bug, comment,
> etc., in the From header (keeping the gcc-bugzilla address there as the
> email address, though From can contain multiple addresses) so it's 
> visible
> on the list who is commenting on bugs?
It's already *in* the actual text, but i'll look into it.
It might take me a day or so to get it done.

Re: At the request of those drowing in gcc-bugs email

[Christian Ehrhardt]

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 05:06:54PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I have changed gcc-bugs's email preferences so it only gets mail about 
> the following:
> 
> "New Comments are added"
> "Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes"
> "The bug is resolved or verified "
> "The bug is in the unconfirmed state"

That sounds good. Some of the mails currently sent are IMHO not needed.

   regards   Christian

-- 
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!