guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[bug#64151] [PATCH] etc: Stop making sendemail behave strangely.


From: Liliana Marie Prikler
Subject: [bug#64151] [PATCH] etc: Stop making sendemail behave strangely.
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 21:26:16 +0200
User-agent: Evolution 3.46.4

Am Montag, dem 26.06.2023 um 10:36 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> > I like the intention, though I understand one might find it a bit
> > heavy-handed: we end up Cc’ing lots of people (and apparently this
> > hasn’t resulted in an increase of review work, unfortunately).
> 
> It did for me in a limited way because I'm only part of the gnome-
> team :-).  When Liliana's GNOME patches reach my INBOX I feel
> compelled to process them quickly.  I'd otherwise probably easily
> miss them.
Funny that you'd mention that because for me, debbugs notifications are
pretty hit or miss.  A lot of them end up filtered by our benevolent
overlords without me having ever read them.

> I'd suggest people joining teams only do so if they actually have the
> bandwidth to help with the review of the scopes they cover to avoid
> feeling overwhelmed.  It's easy to add/remove ourselves to a team.
> 
> If you *really* don't want the default configured behavior to happen,
> you still can, by adding the '--no-header-cmd' option to your 'git
> send-email' invocation, although I'd prefer you use this with a lot
> of care, as I want to receive the notifications for the submissions
> touching the team I'm subscribed to :-)
I feel as though we won't find many members willing to cover a certain
scope if they potentially have to be responsible for all of it.  Like,
despite being a member of the gnome and emacs teams, there are certain
packages within that scope that I'm more familiar with than others.

> If there's something to improve such as not adding a CC to yourself,
> that's a good idea and can probably be done in etc/teams.scm.  You
> can open an issue for it if you'd like to track its resolution.
> 
> Does that clarify things?  If it does and it's acceptable to you,
> please close this issue.
Even with such a hypothetical --exclude-whomever switch added, I'd
argue that it is wrong to magically install this configuration without
any user interaction.  The current setup also causes quite a number of
false positives, like a package rename also causing changes in some
other scope and hence notifying like five different teams all at once.

Cheers





reply via email to

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