From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 3 20:41:46 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3A64C3E for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAE4928C8 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC85438BD; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:41:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <538E32E5.5040400@marino.st> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:41:09 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hurd , Matthias Andree , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD bug tracking moves from GNATS to Bugzilla References: <92E4FB10-DDC8-4B3E-9242-4E8494491630@FreeBSD.org> <538DBAEC.5060905@gmail.com> <538E2924.3090002@gmx.de> <538E2AC9.7010309@sasktel.net> In-Reply-To: <538E2AC9.7010309@sasktel.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:41:47 -0000 On 6/3/2014 22:06, Stephen Hurd wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: >> Surely there may be valid and sometimes useful comments by people who >> aren't the original reporter, but for the common case that the bug >> evolves into a discussion between a developer and a reporter having a >> valid BIDIRECTIONAL communications channel up front helps a lot. > > I would venture that docs bugs and certain classes of website bugs > rarely have communications. For example: > > Those bugs would simply not have been submitted if I had to create an > account first. If the submitter's interest in getting the bug known in order to be fixed exceeds the distaste for registration, then yes, the report would still get submitted. (For example, if that person *really* wants to access FreeBSD forums via IPv6 and nobody knows it's busted, they would probably bite the bullet). If nobody else that has an account already bothers to report it, it must not really be that big of an issue. > I strongly support anonymous bug reporting, but I'm not interested in a > protracted discussion on it. The comitters can decide if they want > trivial bugs reported or not as they prefer. I don't concede killing anonymous means killing trivial bug reporting, but if that was the case: Oh well, I guess we have to focus on non-trivial bugs. John