W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > November 2002

Re: we're going to have an official bugzilla

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:04:31 +0100
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
cc: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <A01060006-1022-C95C1335FA6711D6949200039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:

>Done! (hopefully working fine). http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/

Outstanding, thanks Olivier!

BTW, could we quickly get some sort of consensus on what policy to have for
this; in re who gets to have accounts and what "products" are hosted there
(cf. Björn's message)?

I'd say "Public" means _Public_ and we should let everyone at it to file
bugs; if we run into trouble with people spamming it or closing open issues
etc. that's soon enough to start looking at locking it down a bit.

And hosting the CSS Validator bug database there seems the natural fit to
me (regardless of whether this is "QA Run" or "W3C Run", the CSS Validator
falls into both categories). This would also mean we could have MarkUp
Validator bugs depend on CSS Validator fixes (*chough*DOCTYPEs*chough*) and
vice versa.

The sooner that gets set up the better IMO, and the sooner Bugzilla's
existance is announced to www-validator likewise!

-- 
By definition there is _no_way_ any problem can be my fault. Any problems
you think you can find in my code are in your imagination. If you continue
with such derranged imaginings then I may be forced to perform corrective
brain surgery... with an axe!                            -- Stephen Harris
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 15:04:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:43 GMT