On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:23:12PM -0400, Chris Lumens wrote: > > * 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. > > Unknown as to whether other bugzillas support the XML-RPC. How about making this a bit more generic so that someone could write support for something other than Bugzilla? For instance rPath and Foresight use JIRA which supports both a SOAP and XML-RPC interface. > > * 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 | > > [-----------------------------------] > > Sure, something like this is easy enough to do. Looks like there's > enough support on the list for keeping it, even though I don't really > care to. I always viewed it as a stop-gap until we got something > better. This could still be valuable from the point of view of debugging a dark site install. Elliot -- Elliot Peele rPath, Inc. elliot@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
