which bug to bug?

[Paul W. Frields]

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/
-------------- 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/a2928155/attachment.sig>