Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2019-01-16 13:38:55 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > On 2019-01-15 11:57:21 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:43 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
> > > > > The only big catch I see is that if someone emails -bugs directly, no
> > > > > number is assigned, so we would have to leave that be.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, those would be entirely out of scope.
> > >
> > > Agreed. I previously wished there were an email based interface to
> > > submitting a bug, but that'd just be that, a new interface for
> > > submitting a bug.
> >
> > This got me wondering... why?
>
> Why I want it, or why I think it's out of scope?
"Why does it need to be a new interface?" is what I was going for there.
> > This discussion is all about building a mapping between a Bug# and a
> > message-ID. If we do that, why not fill it in completely? As in, have
> > a Bug# for every thread on -bugs, either the one assigned by the webpage
> > or one which we assign when we see the email come in and then backfill
> > that?
>
> Well, one problem is that we can't offer the same subject based UI, at
> least not trivially. We'd have to rewrite emails that aren't replies
> to an existing thread to come from a different sender to have a
> different subject and not fall afoul of dkim et al.
No, we can't rewrite the subject, and I wasn't suggesting that we do so.
> It seems pretty reasonable to do that, but not a small task, so I just
> don't think it should be bundled with the, I think, smaller task of
> just building the mapping. Doesn't seem like there'd be a lot of
> wasted effort by doing these separately.
I'm not against doing them independently, but I don't think the level of
effort required to simply fill in a bug number for any message-id we
find that doesn't match the subject-based search we'll be doing for the
bug # would be very much. The bigger question that I'm trying to ask
here is for input on how useful it'd end up being or if people don't
think they'd actually use it.
As I recall, we actively discussed doing something similar for -hackers,
to shorten up the URLs going into commit messages but there was some
concern over having a mapping from IDs to message-IDs. I'd have to go
dig up the thread to remember what the issue was there.
Thanks!
Stephen
