Re: bug-buddy branched

hi all,

On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 12:20, James Henstridge wrote:
> 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? 
> >  
> >
> Yes.  It is a real pain getting incomplete bug reports from people with 
> bad emails.  Even when the person gives a real email address in 
> bug-buddy, it would be preferable for them to have an account (otherwise 
> it is not obvious how the submitter can add extra information to the bug).

I understand the pain, I have felt that pain. The bugsquad should take
the load of maintainers with closing useless incomplete reports.

But there is still much usefulness in getting anon[1] reports on
crashes, it can be a real indicator of how widespread a problem is -
even if we have to go elsewhere to diagnose the problem.

That is why I still advocate allowing 'anon' bug-buddy submissions. I am
not denying that many are useless, I just don't want to lose all the
useful info we do get from anon reports. 

Maybe James you haven't had much use from the bad reports, but for stuff
like gnome-panel crashes, it has been useful receiving the vague
incomplete reports... For every 20 incomplete anon reports there is one
person who is willing to co-operate in diagnosing the bug further.

[1] By 'anon' I mean a submitter who submitted an invalid address or
will not reply to give any more information about the bug.
Wayne Schuller <k_wayne linuxpower org>

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