RAISING NEW ISSUES

So far we've just been raising issues by sending them out to
the mailing list.  The following is my proposal for the new
procedure for submitting a new bug or feature request:

    1. Write your message for everybody in the normal way, with
       a good concise one-line description of the issue in the
       subject line.  The description should be a direct statement
       of what is wrong, or what you want added.  See the Roundup
       index at http://whatever.../roundup.cgi for examples of
       descriptions.

    2. Choose a category.

       Look for an existing category or choose your own: pick
       something short, in capital letters.  Just try not to let
       the number of categories get out of hand.

       At the beginning of your subject line insert the category
       name followed by a colon.  (See the example below.)

    3. Send your message ONLY to the Roundup e-mail address.

As mentioned in my previous message, you can also specify the
priority, status, fixer, or nosy fields in the subject line,
although you don't have to.


DISCUSSING ISSUES

When sending any message about an issue, make sure that the
bug id is in the subject line and that Roundup will get a
copy, so that the message can be saved with the bug record.

If you are replying to a message about the bug, this should
all be taken care of for you: your mailer should direct the
reply to Roundup automatically, and you don't need to worry
about the "Re:" before the bug id in the subject line.

If you're writing a new message about the bug, just put an
at-sign, the bug id, and a colon in front of your subject line
and send the message to me.  Other people who have already
written about the bug will get a copy of the message.  If you
want, you can Cc: someone who isn't already participating.

And, when replying, try to trim down the quoted messages as
much as possible.


                         *      *      *

For example, let's suppose Sarah discovers a RIB problem, and
she thinks it's very important and that Joe will be interested
in the outcome.  Rather than sending it to everyone, she sends
Roundup this message:

    From: sarah
    To: roundup
    Subject: RIB: needs more barbecue sauce [priority=1 nosy=joe]

    This RIB isn't very tasty.  Could you spice it up a little?

Roundup grabs the message, creates a new bug id (let's say RIB5)
and saves the message in the bug's record.  The bug is set to
priority 1-critical.  "joe" is placed on the "nosy" list.  It
then sends out this automatic message:

    From: sarah
    To: everybody
    Reply-To: Roundup <roundup>
    Subject: @RIB5: needs more barbecue sauce

    Bug: RIB5 (http://happy/roundup/RIB5)
    Description:  -> needs more barbecue sauce
    Status:  -> unread
    Priority:  -> 1-critical
    Fixer: 
    Nosy: sarah,joe

    This RIB isn't very tasty.  Could you spice it up a little?

Thus, the effect is the same as Sarah sending the message to the
list, except that Roundup has automatically created a new bug
record.  Notice that Roundup has added a "Reply-To" header here.
It has also assumed that, since Sarah sent the original message,
Sarah will be interested in seeing replies.

Now, if Bill were to reply to that message, his mailer would
produce something like this:

    From: bill
    To: Roundup <roundup>
    Subject: Re: @RIB5: needs more barbecue sauce

    I don't think the barbecue sauce is the issue.  This
    RIB definitely looks overcooked.

Roundup grabs this message (it skips the "Re:" and sees the
bug id, RIB5), adds it to the archive for RIB5, and forwards
it to sarah and joe.  It also adds bill to the "nosy" list
because now he has decided to involve himself in the
conversation; thus, a further reply by joe would go to both
sarah and bill.

If i were to go to the web page for RIB5 and change its
status, sarah, joe, and bill would get a message telling
them that it had changed.



-- ?!ng