More custom field revisions

[Gervase Markham]

Jake wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> I'd consider it pretty weird if you had the rights to see the bug but 
>> not the field within it. As I understand it, we seem to be trying to 
>> avoid ("insiders" excepted) having different bits of individual bugs 
>> appear and disappear.
> 
> 
> There may be fringe cases where that's necessary :)
> FE, the time tracking information. I'm not sure if it works that way now 
> or not, but I can certainly see where a person or company may wish to 
> have a public bugzilla but keep their resource expenditure information 
> secret.

In this case, they can use insiders, and just put [% IF 
UserInInsiderGroup() %] or whatever around the timetracking display 
stuff. Same for any field which only requires a binary split like that.

My worry is that having per-field granularity will add to the complexity 
without making things more useful.

> Also, the second part of that bug is important: who gets to edit it. 

That's an orthogonal problem to custom fields IMO.

Gerv