Re: Bugzilla read to go live?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes: 
> I thikk the wording correctly expresses the fact that it is the
> intersection - if you select both, it will only be visible to people
> who are both bugzilla maintainers and gnome hackers. How would
> you improve it?

I guess I'd do check buttons:

 [  ]  Must be a gnome hacker to see this bug
 [  ]  Must be a bugzilla maintainer to see this bug

But, that's probably painful to implement. Not a huge deal.
 
>  - Should we remove the UNCONFIRMED state?
>  - Should we enable it with only manual confirmation?
>  - Should we expose the voting mechanism? (ugh)
>

I can see how it would be useful to have a QA team that went through and
checked whether bugs were for real and reproducible, moving them to
NEW if they were, otherwise to NOTABUG, NEEDINFO, or whatever. Then 
this same team would move bugs from FIXED to VERIFIED.

If maintainers are doing everything themselves, then UNCONFIRMED and
VERIFIED are both useless states probably, since those reflect a QA
process separate from the maintainer process.

Anyhow, the logical conclusion of that is "enable with manual
configuration" if we're going to try to have a QA process, otherwise
remove UNCONFIRMED and VERIFIED.

Havoc