GNATS and email..

[Rodent of Unusual Size <co...@decus.org>]

    IMHO, we *really* need to make some improvements in the GNATS/email
    interface.  It looks like lots of exchanges are occurring
    out-of-band with the bugdb, and confusion is resulting..

    Some ideas:

    1. If you reply to the original notification message, your reply
       should go into the bugdb and get sent to the originator.
       (Downside: a lot of replies to the mail are currently intended to
       for the list only, and *not* to go to the bugdb).  So the
       original `from' should probably be apbugs, not the customer's
       email.  (Among other things.)
    2. If you reply to a `problem changed' message, same behaviour as
       above.
    3. You should be able to take ownership of a PR and still have the
       mail be sent to the list as before (this might avoid some of the
       recent confusions wrt who's doing what with which).

    Thoughts?  As much as these can be done in the bugdb.cgi (as opposed
    to GNATS proper) I'm willing to do, but I've never hacked GNATS.
    Marc?  Didn't you [foolishly?] admit to some expertise here?

    #ken    :-)}

Re: GNATS and email..

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On 14 May 1997, Paul Richards wrote:

> Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com> writes:
> 
> > A mail interface to all bugdb stuff would be useful to those of us who
> > aren't (and can't be) online all day. I use nothing but a 28.8 modem, and
> > being in the UK, each connection costs $$s and (more annoying) time
> > setup. Working via offline email is my only option for Apache stuff.
> 
> Gnats has always had all this functionality. Isn't it enabled?

Erm... it has?  That's news to me.  You can _ADD_ information to PRs via
mail just fine but I am not aware of any way to modify the state.

Re: GNATS and email..

[Paul Richards <p....@elsevier.co.uk>]

Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com> writes:

> A mail interface to all bugdb stuff would be useful to those of us who
> aren't (and can't be) online all day. I use nothing but a 28.8 modem, and
> being in the UK, each connection costs $$s and (more annoying) time
> setup. Working via offline email is my only option for Apache stuff.

Gnats has always had all this functionality. Isn't it enabled?

-- 
  Dr Paul Richards. [p.richards@elsevier.co.uk]
  Originative Solutions Ltd.  [paul@originat.demon.co.uk]
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155 (Elsevier)

Re: GNATS and email..

[Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com>]

On Tue, 13 May 1997, Paul Sutton wrote:

> Yes, both of these would be cool. But what about changing the status via
> email? It would be good for saving effort - replies could be shot off from
> the PR itself, and yeah no more line ending problems! 

A mail interface to all bugdb stuff would be useful to those of us who
aren't (and can't be) online all day. I use nothing but a 28.8 modem, and
being in the UK, each connection costs $$s and (more annoying) time
setup. Working via offline email is my only option for Apache stuff.

--
Rob Hartill                              Internet Movie Database (Ltd)
http://us.imdb.com/tour   .. a site for sore eyes.

Re: GNATS and email..

[Paul Sutton <pa...@ukweb.com>]

On Tue, 13 May 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>     1. If you reply to the original notification message, your reply
>        should go into the bugdb and get sent to the originator.
>        (Downside: a lot of replies to the mail are currently intended to
>        for the list only, and *not* to go to the bugdb).  So the
>        original `from' should probably be apbugs, not the customer's
>        email.  (Among other things.)
>     2. If you reply to a `problem changed' message, same behaviour as
>        above.

Yes, both of these would be cool. But what about changing the status via
email? It would be good for saving effort - replies could be shot off from
the PR itself, and yeah no more line ending problems! 

>     3. You should be able to take ownership of a PR and still have the
>        mail be sent to the list as before (this might avoid some of the
>        recent confusions wrt who's doing what with which).

This seems like a good idea. Prevent confusion about who's doing what. 
However I definitely don't want to miss any bugdb updates, so copies of
the messages must always still go to apache-bugs. 

//pcs