which bug to bug?

[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.

-- 
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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/attachments/20051127/7d1f9a9f/attachment.sig>