#685264 debbugs: obey “Control” field in pseudoheader of messages to ‘NNN-done@bugs.debian.org’

Package:
debbugs
Source:
debbugs
Submitter:
Andreas Beckmann
Date:
2021-08-29 22:03:08 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
#685264#5
Date:
2012-08-18 23:55:48 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

is there a reason the Control: pseudoheader does not work on
nnnnnn-done@b.d.o messages?

Setting/clearing flags may be an action someone wants to do while
closing a bug, e.g. - moreinfo + unreproducible

I tried this in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684069#25

(and later set the unreproducible via bts tag ...

Andreas
#685264#10
Date:
2012-08-19 03:57:49 UTC
From:
To:
severity 685264 wishlist
retitle 685264 allow control pseudoheader to work with -done@
reassign 685264 debbugs
thanks
things may be supported in the future, but most of those other
messages have side effects.


Don Armstrong
#685264#17
Date:
2016-10-15 04:37:16 UTC
From:
To:
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Control: retitle -1 debbugs: obey “Control” field in pseudoheader of messages to ‘NNN-done@bugs.debian.org’
Control: reassign -1 debbugs

I find it somewhat ironic that these commands did not take effect
because the BTS didn't recognise them :-)

Correcting that with a pseudoheader now.
#685264#28
Date:
2016-10-15 04:48:31 UTC
From:
To:
Could you expand on that? I don't know what would be the down-side of
having debbugs recognise the pseudoheader in a message such as
<URL:https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761980#24>.

The message was sent to <761980-done@bugs.debian.org> with an
explanation of why it is being closed, and also a pseudoheader with
some instructions to the BTS.

What would be wrong with having the BTS recognise that pseudoheader
and obey it?

That one did not take effect, until I also sent it to the bug report
<761980@bugs.debian.org>. Neither that nor <submit@bugs.debian.org>
seem appropriate for a message which is not intended to have anything
but an administrative effect, so <761980-done@bugs.debian.org> seems
the correct place to send that message.
#685264#33
Date:
2016-10-15 22:53:40 UTC
From:
To:
I think for -done it would work, but for -quiet, -maintonly, or
-submitter, it doesn't really make sense.

I'm also concerned about the ordering of the control operations for
-done messages, but I think applying the control operations first, and
then the -done operation could work. [This is actually exactly the
opposite of how submit@ and nnn@ works, which is why it isn't trivial to
implement.]
#685264#38
Date:
2021-08-27 00:06:27 UTC
From:
To:
Shouldn't these bugs be merged?

685264: debbugs: obey “Control” field in pseudoheader of messages to ‘NNN-done@bugs.debian.org’
705155: allow Control: commands at -done and -forwarded
746206: Control: pseudoheaders do not work for -done bugs; finish() called too early
#685264#43
Date:
2021-08-29 21:49:59 UTC
From:
To:
forcemerge 685264 705155 746206
thanks

Yep. Merging them.