Too much bugmail noise from derivative distros
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Launchpad itself |
Triaged
|
Low
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Every time somebody marks a bug as affecting another (downstream) distro, I get bugmail about it. Once we have many derivative distros using Malone, the bugmail flood is going to be very substantial.
Is it possible to suppress these bugmails when they carry no further interesting semantics? For instance, if a comment was added, that would be interesting, or a watch on a foreign bug system would be interesting because that bug system might have more information. In this particular case it's just somebody saying that a load of installer bugs affect Baltix too, and since Baltix is a derivative of Ubuntu this is obvious and gives me no useful information - although somebody subscribed to Baltix bugs would care.
(Alternatively, if Baltix didn't *have* to go through and explicitly mark everything as affecting Baltix too, then perhaps that would also be sensible.)
Changed in malone: | |
status: | Needs Info → Confirmed |
On 7-Feb-06, at 10:26 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> Public bug reported: /launchpad. net/malone/ bugs/30733
> https:/
>
> Affects: malone (upstream)
> Severity: Normal
> Priority: (none set)
> Status: Unconfirmed
>
> Description:
> Every time somebody marks a bug as affecting another (downstream)
> distro, I get bugmail about it. Once we have many derivative distros
> using Malone, the bugmail flood is going to be very substantial.
>
> Is it possible to suppress these bugmails when they carry no further
> interesting semantics? For instance, if a comment was added, that
> would
> be interesting, or a watch on a foreign bug system would be
> interesting
> because that bug system might have more information. In this
> particular
> case it's just somebody saying that a load of installer bugs affect
> Baltix too, and since Baltix is a derivative of Ubuntu this is obvious
> and gives me no useful information - although somebody subscribed to
> Baltix bugs would care.
>
> (Alternatively, if Baltix didn't *have* to go through and explicitly
> mark everything as affecting Baltix too, then perhaps that would
> also be
> sensible.)
Hm, this is all a bit tricky, because the current model doesn't
associate a user with a given distro (and, indeed, many users have a
vested interest in more than one distro.)
mpt, any thoughts on this?
status needsinfo
Cheers,
--
Brad Bollenbach