Re: bug-buddy branched

[Telsa Gwynne <hobbit aloss ukuu org uk>]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:19:28PM -0800 or thereabouts, Heath Harrelson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 08:19, 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 tend to agree with Andrew on this.  It's sad that people find getting
> a bugzilla account such a psychic barrier, but I don't think we would be
> necessarily doing ourselves (or GNOME's users, for that matter) a favor
> by limiting bug reports to registered users.

It's not "registered users" so much as it is "valid email addresses
that reach the reporter".

There was some resistance by people to moving from debbugs to 
bugzilla at the time we did it, and this was one of the reasons.
(Cookies were a bigger issue for many!)

But in fact, we didn't get fewer decent bug submissions when we 
switched. 

> Allowing anonymous bug reports definitely has its drawbacks (thousands
> of duplicates, bugs containing only "it crashed," etc.).  Nonetheless, I
> think that more is gained by making it extremely easy to report bugs.

Having been deluged with the drawbacks, I am in the "leave email
addresses required" camp. I really do think it has helped us no
end. 

Telsa