#774642 please support implicit control

Package:
debbugs
Source:
debbugs
Submitter:
Holger Levsen
Date:
2015-02-22 18:39:06 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
#774642#5
Date:
2015-01-05 16:56:37 UTC
From:
To:
package: bugs.debian.org
severity: wishlist

Hi,

I've just send the following mail to 774614@b.d.o which obviously didnt work:
[...]

OTOH this mail only included one bug in the to/cc/bcc headers, so it would be
nice if the bts just did what I ment!

Thanks for maintaining bugs.debian.org - the best bug tracker I know!


cheers,
	Holger
#774642#10
Date:
2015-01-05 19:02:38 UTC
From:
To:
It's not always very clear what would be meant; messages to control can
affect any bug, and currently the only thing that happens when you send
a message to nnn@b.d.o is that -1 is pre-populated to mean nnn.

For example, if you had done clone -1 -2, there's now a huge ambiguity
as to what that actually meant. Likewise for block commands.

It'd also require having control messages parse a totally separate
grammar for messages to nnn@ vs control@, which isn't really something
I'd like to do.
#774642#15
Date:
2015-01-05 19:07:33 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Don,
$bugnumber@bugs.debian.org with "control: $action $params" in the body instead
of "control: $action -1 $params". (as in my example)


cheers,
	Holger
#774642#20
Date:
2015-01-05 21:16:27 UTC
From:
To:
The Control: psuedoheader for nnn@bugs.debian.org is exactly the same as
e-mailing control@, with the caveat that -1 is prepopulated to be nnn.

An implicit bug would require a totally separate grammar for the
Control: psuedoheader, which would also lead to clone and block being
ambiguous, as it wouldn't be clear whether you wanted clone -1 -2 to
mean clone nnn -2 or clone nnn -1 -2, etc.

While DWIM is a good thing in general, I don't think this would be a
good addition to the control grammar.
#774642#25
Date:
2015-01-06 01:30:34 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Don,
[ah!]

feel free to close this bug then...! or wontfix or..? :)


thanks,
	Holger