- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:52:39 +0200
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Predictably, the issue of making the bug database public has surfaced on w-v. Now as mentioned, the immediate reason I don't make my setup public is that I don't trust the installation, robust-wise as well as security-wise. However, when we get a Bugzilla running hosted at W3C the question remains; should the Bugzilla be public? One caveat with a public bug database would be that we'd need the access controls to work as we want them to; so Joe R. Webduhsigner can't accidentally or maliciously close a bug, change milestone goals, assignments, or wreak other havoc. Having the ability for anyone to create bugs, confirm bugs, or add comments would be very good. However, there is also a question of what the intention behind this Bugzilla is. Will it only host Validator and Validator-related bug databases? Or will it function as a bug database for all QA related Development? I can easily envision circumstances where the QA Activity (or WG, or whatever) would need to do some closed development and keep a closed bug database -- some of whch circumstances I even consider valid reasons for closing things up :-) -- that would ill fit with a public Bugzilla. The devil's advocate bit done, however, my opinion is that the Bugzilla should be set up to be public and then we (well, you, actually ;D) can deal with any such "closed development" issues when they arrive, iff they ever arrive. A public Bugzilla is far too usefull to let it get shot down by the mere theoretical possibility that some other mode of operation /may/ be needed at some point in the future. -- "You gonna take advice from somebody who slapped DEE BARNES?!" -- eminem
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 15:52:42 UTC