On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 11:58 -0400, Chris Lumens wrote:
> Here's an exciting and perhaps somewhat controversial patch set. This one
> removes support for saving bugs via scp and adds in its place support for
> saving directly to bugzilla. High points:
So this is something that we've talked about off and on for, umm, way
too long to think about at this point. So it's probably something that
we should think heavily about. But some questions that would also need
to be answered
* bugUrl doesn't have to be a bugzilla instance. And are the XML-RPC
methods being used even available at other bugzilla instances? There
probably needs to be a way to say that this bug instance "supports"
things filed in this manner.
* Maybe this should be rolled in to the question of what to do about
product.img
* Keeping scp support seems to have some value, so I don't know that I'd
replace it. Not sure what the right UI then is for choosing what to do
with your traceback. Maybe something like the firefox download dialog
[-----------------------------------]
| Blah. We crashed. Some info. |
| v Traceback details |
| o Save to local disk |
| o Send to bugzilla |
| o Save to remote server |
[-----------------------------------]
* Should think hard about the right things to hash on. Especially given
different products using the same/similar anaconda
* It's a little scary to do this without a triager on the primary place
we expect to be getting the bugs... :)
That's at least the first few minutes of thought. And I didn't really
do more than give the code a glance at this point instead trying to
think on some of the above.
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
