which bug to bug?

[Karsten Wade]

Which bugzilla component should receive bugs for formal Fedora websites?

FDP created the 'fedora-websites' component in response to a need to
receive and channel such bugs.

However, the Fedora Infrastructure group already existed.  Should that
have the component that receives website bug traffic?

My main desire is to reduce confusion.[1]  We've had some good
beginnings using the FDP-based component, but I'm happy to move our
group of bug responders over to the FI-based component.

Thoughts?

- Karsten

[1] Speaking of which, anyone know how to remove or deprecate the
'fedora-docs' component in the 'Fedora Core' category?

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:45 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> Which bugzilla component should receive bugs for formal Fedora websites?
>
> FDP created the 'fedora-websites' component in response to a need to
> receive and channel such bugs.
>
> However, the Fedora Infrastructure group already existed.  Should that
> have the component that receives website bug traffic?

Thanks for bringing this to the list where it belonged... I pinged
Karsten in a Bugzilla entry earlier today about this issue.  My feeling
is that we don't want to make it harder for users to tell us about
website problems, but we also want to help them put bugs in the right
place when possible.
> My main desire is to reduce confusion.[1]  We've had some good
> beginnings using the FDP-based component, but I'm happy to move our
> group of bug responders over to the FI-based component.
> [1] Speaking of which, anyone know how to remove or deprecate the
> 'fedora-docs' component in the 'Fedora Core' category?

I cc'd this to Dan Williams because I think I remember somebody saying
he was the King of All Bugzilla.  Certainly that odd component needs to
vanish now that we have our own product category.

[seth vidal]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 12:34 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:45 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > Which bugzilla component should receive bugs for formal Fedora websites?
> >
> > FDP created the 'fedora-websites' component in response to a need to
> > receive and channel such bugs.
> >
> > However, the Fedora Infrastructure group already existed.  Should that
> > have the component that receives website bug traffic?
>
> Thanks for bringing this to the list where it belonged... I pinged
> Karsten in a Bugzilla entry earlier today about this issue.  My feeling
> is that we don't want to make it harder for users to tell us about
> website problems, but we also want to help them put bugs in the right
> place when possible.
> > My main desire is to reduce confusion.[1]  We've had some good
> > beginnings using the FDP-based component, but I'm happy to move our
> > group of bug responders over to the FI-based component.
> > [1] Speaking of which, anyone know how to remove or deprecate the
> > 'fedora-docs' component in the 'Fedora Core' category?
>
> I cc'd this to Dan Williams because I think I remember somebody saying
> he was the King of All Bugzilla.  Certainly that odd component needs to
> vanish now that we have our own product category.

not dcbw

dkl == bugzilla master.

Dave Lawrence

-sv

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 14:07 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 12:34 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:45 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > > Which bugzilla component should receive bugs for formal Fedora websites?
> > >
> > > FDP created the 'fedora-websites' component in response to a need to
> > > receive and channel such bugs.
> > >
> > > However, the Fedora Infrastructure group already existed.  Should that
> > > have the component that receives website bug traffic?
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this to the list where it belonged... I pinged
> > Karsten in a Bugzilla entry earlier today about this issue.  My feeling
> > is that we don't want to make it harder for users to tell us about
> > website problems, but we also want to help them put bugs in the right
> > place when possible.
> > > My main desire is to reduce confusion.[1]  We've had some good
> > > beginnings using the FDP-based component, but I'm happy to move our
> > > group of bug responders over to the FI-based component.
> > > [1] Speaking of which, anyone know how to remove or deprecate the
> > > 'fedora-docs' component in the 'Fedora Core' category?
> >
> > I cc'd this to Dan Williams because I think I remember somebody saying
> > he was the King of All Bugzilla.  Certainly that odd component needs to
> > vanish now that we have our own product category.
>
> not dcbw
>
> dkl == bugzilla master.
>
> Dave Lawrence

Thanks Seth, set new Cc accordingly.