-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-03-08 20:16, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2011-03-08 09:47, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
iirc, this was discussed on the pd-dev list prior to enabling the "feature".
Is reading pd-dev a requirement for people who submit to the patchtracker ?
i don't think so. however, if people complain that there posts are not processed in the way they imagine that they should, they might want to familiarize themselves with the way others imagine it.
How does that not mean "I think so" ?
you don't have to know that issues in the tracker are forwarded to pd-dev, in order to submit issues.
if you are using the tracker to send emails to pd-dev without having to be subscribed, then you are obviously trying to tweak rules of pd-dev. if you try to tweak the rules, then you should probably know them.
How would anyone find out about the rule, other than reading a few years of pd-dev until stumbling upon that thread ; or writing a mail that will be interpreted as being a "complaint" simply because "report" and "inquiry" aren't in the vocabulary ?
why do you insist in having explicit knowledge about the rules?
i keep submitting bugs and patches to other projects at sourceforge, and i couldn't care less whether these tickets are automatically forwarded to some email address or not. i don't know the tracker rules of these projects. but i see that there _is_ a tracker, and hope that someone will eventually read it (when they find time). that's it.
(i find that trackers that contain 5 or less items are usually worthless (except for very young projects), as they seem to be not used at all but have been created automatically and nobody turned them off; with projects that have many issues, and many of them closed, i usually assume that the tracker is in active use and eventually somebody responsible will have a look at my issue)
fmgasdr IOhannes