Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:41:09 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Stephen Hurd <shurd@sasktel.net>, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD bug tracking moves from GNATS to Bugzilla Message-ID: <538E32E5.5040400@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <538E2AC9.7010309@sasktel.net> References: <92E4FB10-DDC8-4B3E-9242-4E8494491630@FreeBSD.org> <538DBAEC.5060905@gmail.com> <538E2924.3090002@gmx.de> <538E2AC9.7010309@sasktel.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/3/2014 22:06, Stephen Hurd wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: >> Surely there may be valid and sometimes useful comments by people who >> aren't the original reporter, but for the common case that the bug >> evolves into a discussion between a developer and a reporter having a >> valid BIDIRECTIONAL communications channel up front helps a lot. > > I would venture that docs bugs and certain classes of website bugs > rarely have communications. For example: > > Those bugs would simply not have been submitted if I had to create an > account first. If the submitter's interest in getting the bug known in order to be fixed exceeds the distaste for registration, then yes, the report would still get submitted. (For example, if that person *really* wants to access FreeBSD forums via IPv6 and nobody knows it's busted, they would probably bite the bullet). If nobody else that has an account already bothers to report it, it must not really be that big of an issue. > I strongly support anonymous bug reporting, but I'm not interested in a > protracted discussion on it. The comitters can decide if they want > trivial bugs reported or not as they prefer. I don't concede killing anonymous means killing trivial bug reporting, but if that was the case: Oh well, I guess we have to focus on non-trivial bugs. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?538E32E5.5040400>