Re: bug-buddy branched

On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 01:35, James Henstridge wrote:
> Andrew Sobala wrote:
> >On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 16:08, Fernando Herrera wrote:
> >...
> >  
> >
> >>	In the other hand, a good point of using http is that we can
> >>requiere the user to have a valid bugzilla account... do we want this? 
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I'd say not. A lot of non-bugzilla-users are very helpful when asked for
> >further information by e-mail, but would not have reported the bug in
> >the first place if they had to register first.
> >  
> >
> I have talked to a few people on IRC who were hesitant to submit a bug 
> because of the registration process ("not another silly web site wanting 
> me to register ...").  When the reason for the registration process was 
> explained, they felt it was okay and registered.  Some of the reasons to 
> register are:
>     * registration is required to make sure the email address you enter
>       belongs to you (prevents bugzilla from being used to spam others).

This is a good reason in favour of registration. AFAIK no-one's tried
this... yet.

>     * notification when your bug gets fixed

Happens anyway via unknown    

> , and the ability to give
>       extra information to help the developer fix your problem quicker.
>     * ability to get notification of changes to bugs you are interested
>       in but did not submit (through the CC mechanism).
>     * ability to customise the types of notification you get (this will
>       be a much stronger argument after the bugzilla upgrade).

And these are only valid after a bug has been submitted. We're talking
about whether an account is mandatory for people to submit a bug, which
would cut down on the number of bug reports we get. After the bug has
been submitted, people can still get an account if they want to follow
other bugs and so on.

Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]