Status of Bugzilla?

[Daniel Berlin]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > > Do changes to bug categories, priorities, milestones, etc., all generate
> > > messages to the list/lists?
> > Yes, if you have that set in your preferences.
> 
> What's this to do with individual preferences? 
I thought you had written user/lists, my bad.

> They can reasonably
> determine whether bug submitters get these messages - but for whether the
> messages go to the lists, there should be a global configuration, nothing
> to do with any individual's preferences or single bug's configuration.
> 
> Do the audit trail messages to the lists show both the old and new field
> values, e.g. "milestone changed from 3.2 to 3.3"?
They show a diff of the fields, actually.
IE

-<what it was before>
+<what it is now>
> 
> > > Do new attachments (and attachments in newly submitted bug reports with
> > > the web interface) get mailed to the lists (as proper MIME attachments),
> > > as they should?
> > 
> > A URL to them gets mailed, rather than sending possibly huge attachments 
> > to everyone.
> > 
> > The URL is direct (IE it takes you to that attachment, rather than the 
> > bug)
> 
> I'd like to see the attachments going direct to the lists - so simply 
> reading through gcc-bugs (maybe even offline) will show all the bug 
> reports and comments on them, in a self-contained form that is 
> comprehensible without needing external online resources. 
> A size limit 
> here would make sense, something like:
> 
> * Attachments under 100k, just send uncompressed as text/whatever.
> 
> * Larger attachments under 200k when compressed, send compressed.
> 
> * Even larger ones, send URL.
> 
> If a bug report isn't self-contained and immediately readable (at present,
> including a gnatsweb attachment at all means it isn't immediately
> readable, since they aren't sent as MIME) I'm less likely to consider on
> seeing the bug report (rather than months later looking through the bug
> tracking system) whether it is of interest to attempt a fix to, or
> familiar, etc..
Whether this is true for you, doesn't make it true for other people.
Thus, it should be a user preference, not the rule.
I'll add it.

> 
> > Anyone can submit or view.  People can edit bugs they've submitted or 
> > are assigned, and only those,
> 
> Edit in what ways?  Adding attachments is something reasonable for
> submitters to do, most other changes aren't.
Edit as if they owned it, but this can be changed.

> 
> > > Clearly for a production system, the accounts with GNATS write access
> > > would map directly to corresponding access for the corresponding accounts
> > > (only) in Bugzilla, though not necessarily preserving the GNATS
> > > passwords.)
> > 
> > People need accounts to submit bugs (but accounts also let you do things 
> > like save your own set of queries, etc), but it takes 5 seconds to setup 
> > in the web interface, and emailing in bug report will auto-create an 
> > account for you if necessary, and mail yo uback the password.
> 
> Somewhere there must be the manual step to approve the specific people who
> get access to edit bugs.  (Which should be scriptable for approving
> multiple people etc..) 

There is, of course.
>  It needs to be done if/when Bugzilla would be set
> up to replace GNATS, for all people with write access to GNATS, and it
> needs to be done from time to time later, for people approved by the SC,
> from whatever mechanism lies behind the new account form.

Um, of course you can do this, what would make you think you couldn't?

> 
>