gnatsweb PR status change messages

gnatsweb PR status change messages

[Joseph S. Myers]

Gnatsweb 2.9x does not send PR status change messages to the GNATS
address.  This breaks the way it is used for GCC, since developers put a
PR in "feedback" state with the status change message requesting feedback,
but if the user sends feedback it then doesn't get included in the PR,
which may then later get closed wrongly for lack of feedback (feedback
having gone to the mailing lists but not been filed with the PR).

I don't know how GNATS 4 handles this, but it ought to arrange for the
destination and originator addresses of status change messages (and such
headers as Mail-Followup-To) to be such that replies go to all relevant
people (submitter, responsible person, any relevant mailing lists) and the
GNATS address for the replies to be filed.  If it doesn't break mail
clients, perhaps both the GNATS address and that of the person who made
the change should be in the From header.

(FWIW my wishlist for what a bug tracking system for GCC ought to do,
after someone complained about problem with GNATS, is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2001-10/msg00649.html
- how does GNATS 4 do on this?)

A minimal patch for gnatsweb 2.9x is:

--- gnatsweb.pl.orig	Mon Nov 12 17:38:22 2001
+++ gnatsweb.pl	Mon Nov 12 17:38:44 2001
@@ -1299,7 +1299,7 @@
 
     # Get list of people to notify, then add old responsible person.
     # If that person doesn't exist, don't worry about it.
-    %mailto = interested_parties($pr, 0, %fields);
+    %mailto = interested_parties($pr, 1, %fields);
     if(defined($adr = praddr($oldfields{'Responsible'})))
     {
       $mailto{$adr} = 1;

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

Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Gnatsweb 2.9x does not send PR status change messages to the GNATS
> address.  This breaks the way it is used for GCC, since developers put a
> PR in "feedback" state with the status change message requesting feedback,
> but if the user sends feedback it then doesn't get included in the PR,
> which may then later get closed wrongly for lack of feedback (feedback
> having gone to the mailing lists but not been filed with the PR).
> [...]
> A minimal patch for gnatsweb 2.9x is:

Thanks!

Yngve, we now have this patch in production on gcc.gnu.org and it works
as expected -- unless there are strong reasons against, I recommend to
include it for the 2.9x branch.

(If you want, I can create a ChangeLog and apply the patch.)

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages

[Yngve Svendsen]

At 22:29 13.11.2001 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>Thanks!
>
>Yngve, we now have this patch in production on gcc.gnu.org and it works
>as expected -- unless there are strong reasons against, I recommend to
>include it for the 2.9x branch.
>
>(If you want, I can create a ChangeLog and apply the patch.)

Gerald, please do. I have no idea why this wasn't working properly in 
previous 2.9.x versions. Seems it's time for a 2.9.3 pretty soon.

- Yngve

Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages

[Yngve Svendsen]

At 22:29 13.11.2001 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>Thanks!
>
>Yngve, we now have this patch in production on gcc.gnu.org and it works
>as expected -- unless there are strong reasons against, I recommend to
>include it for the 2.9x branch.
>
>(If you want, I can create a ChangeLog and apply the patch.)

Hm. After some more consideration, I have decided that this doesn't look 
like the right way to solve the problem. If I am not completely 
misunderstanding the problem, wouldn't the correct way to solve this be to 
set a correct Reply-To header on these messages?

Yngve Svendsen
Gnatsweb maintainer

Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Yngve Svendsen wrote:
> Hm. After some more consideration, I have decided that this doesn't look
> like the right way to solve the problem. If I am not completely
> misunderstanding the problem, wouldn't the correct way to solve this be
> to set a correct Reply-To header on these messages?

Yes, but apart from being slightly more invasive a patch, my personal
experience is that people often ignore the Reply-To while the keep the
Cc.

(If you prefer the Reply-To, I definitely won't object; we just should
try to address this somehow.)

Cheers,
Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages

[Yngve Svendsen]

At 18:01 16.11.2001 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Yngve Svendsen wrote:
> > Hm. After some more consideration, I have decided that this doesn't look
> > like the right way to solve the problem. If I am not completely
> > misunderstanding the problem, wouldn't the correct way to solve this be
> > to set a correct Reply-To header on these messages?
>
>Yes, but apart from being slightly more invasive a patch, my personal
>experience is that people often ignore the Reply-To while the keep the
>Cc.
>
>(If you prefer the Reply-To, I definitely won't object; we just should
>try to address this somehow.)

Actually RFC822 states that when a Reply-To header is present in a message, 
the client must always use _only_ the Reply-To list when replying, and not 
contents from any of the other headers, such as From.

I added the following Reply-To line to the current version 2 CVS:
Reply-To: $from, $mailto, $config{'GNATS_ADDR'}

In plaintext, this means that this field will contain all the recipients of 
the message itself (which means users replying will have themselves 
included on the recipient list, but that is a minor inconvenience), the 
 From address (which is the person responsible for the PR) as well as the 
GNATS_ADDR.

Do you think this solves the problem? I was a bit uncertain whether to put 
the $from in the Reply-To, but I decided that would be the most logical 
thing to do.

I'll be kicking out a version 2.9.3 in a few days, just need to put in a 
couple more minor patches first.

- Yngve


_______________________________________________
Help-gnats mailing list
Help-gnats@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnats

Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Yngve Svendsen wrote:
> I added the following Reply-To line to the current version 2 CVS:
> Reply-To: $from, $mailto, $config{'GNATS_ADDR'}
> [...]
> Do you think this solves the problem? I was a bit uncertain whether to put
> the $from in the Reply-To, but I decided that would be the most logical
> thing to do.

Yes, this looks fine.  Joseph, do you agree?

> I'll be kicking out a version 2.9.3 in a few days, just need to put in a
> couple more minor patches first.

Thanks a lot!

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/


_______________________________________________
Help-gnats mailing list
Help-gnats@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnats