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. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
