enter_bug page

Matt Jones jones at nceas.ucsb.edu
Fri Oct 18 00:23:19 UTC 2002

I completely agree with Dave.  Bugzilla is great, but one of the few 
truly annoying aspects of the system is having to return to a bug to 
enter additional details that could have been entered on the first form.
Our bugzilla users often forget things that are not on the enter_bug 
page, and having to coax them into doing it is a definite pain.  Not to 
mention getting two bug mails for every one that is needed.

For us, by far the most relevant field that isn't currently on the form 
is the target milestone, as it is mostly used in house by developers 
documenting their own bugs and tasks.  But attachments and dependencies 
would also be a great addition to enter_bug, regardless of the so-called 
technical difficulties associated with putting attachments there. And it 
would even be good if developers could "Accept" a bug when they enter 
it. For us, and I would think more generally, it is common for people to 
use bugzilla to document their own work, and so Accept'ing the bug 
should be automatic in that case.


David Miller wrote:
> On 10/17/02 2:25 PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>We should be aiming to have the most-used features accessible
>>easily, and lesser-used features can require more clicks.
> Which is exactly the reason I completely disagree with Gerv, both for
> attachments and dependencies, because those are both VERY frequently used.
> I get at least new bug notification every two or three days where someone
> files a bug and immediately attaches a patch to it.  That's two bugmails
> when I could have just gotten one.  We frequently have a need for metabugs
> (though it's probably overused, it's a fact of life) and dependencies on
> the enter_bug page makes that a lot easier, too.
>>This bug could be fixed for installations that want it, when process_bug
>>and post_bug are combined, using a simple HTML link, without any
>>additional code. I don't think that it should ever be fixed in core
>>Bugzilla, and certainly doesn't justify the 112373 patch.
>>>I'd like to keep the 112373 patch in, so that 141175 can be patched.  I
>>I'd like to back 112373 out, and mark 141175 as WONTFIX :-)
> I want 112373 to stay in.  Although I do think it would have better waited
> until process/post got combined.
> 141175 is a dupe of 81642.  81642 now has a corporate sponsor so it'll
> happen sooner than we think.

Matt Jones                                  jones at nceas.ucsb.edu
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)

Interested in ecological informatics? http://www.ecoinformatics.org

More information about the developers mailing list