| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:04:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
Agostino Sarubbo <ago@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I proposed to have an 'integration' between euscan and pybugz. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Sounds superficially like a giant security hole / spam gateway. What |
| 7 |
kind of integration are we talking about? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> In this manner everyone can file a version bump request via euscan. |
| 10 |
> What do you think about? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If the false positives go down significantly, we wouldn't need |
| 13 |
interested users to "report" version bumps - you could automate that |
| 14 |
all the way, and publish links to the bugs already reported. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But couldn't we more simply and securely implement publishing a |
| 17 |
hyperlink from euscan's pages to the bugs.g.o form that fills out some |
| 18 |
of the required information in advance? That way it's everybody's |
| 19 |
personal bugzilla accounts that are responsible for the spam, and we |
| 20 |
might more easily find duplicates. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Speaking of duplicates, the way subsequent version bump requests for |
| 23 |
subsequent versions (in different SLOTs, mind you) are usually treated |
| 24 |
now is that the later bugs are marked as duplicates of the former and |
| 25 |
that the former bug's Summary is updated to show the currently best |
| 26 |
version(s). If we're going to stick to that, we *definitely* need a way |
| 27 |
to catch out duplicates. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
jer |
Archives