- From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:24:03 +0900
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Hi Terje, All. On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 04:52 Asia/Tokyo, Terje Bless wrote: > > 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. Hmm, yes, a read-only bugzilla may certainly be less useful, but at least it would be better than nothing at all. However, I believe bugzilla is flexible enough, and we could give "visitors" the proper rights while avoiding abuses. ...Or maybe not, at least the group editor does not seem flexible enough. http://bugs.tj.unn.no/editgroups.cgi > However, there is also a question of what the intention behind this > Bugzilla is. My plan would be to use it for public bug tracking of public QA software dev. If other things don't fit, then they look for another bugzilla. Simple :) > 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. +1. Definitely. -- Olivier Thereaux - W3C - QA : http://www.w3.org/QA/ http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 01:24:04 UTC