pcplantdb

[Richard Morris <webmaster@pfaf.org>]

John Schinnerer wrote:
> We're having a furious agreement here...that's what I'm saying below...
> When I do some non-ascii flow diagrams it will hopefully be much clearer
> to all.
I'm not sure. It seems like the only way a bug can be verified is by 
being closed, that takes it out of the regression cycle.

How about:
(bug,resolved) -> (bug,verified) -> (bug,closed)

Where (bug,verified) means its been checked and is OK, but we do not 
want to close it as we wish to reopen it in the next release.

> > Absolutly not. On numerious ocassions a member of the public has spotted
> > something wrong with the pfaf site, and emailed me to report it.
> > Its the 1000 eyeballs theory of open source methodology. The more people
> > examining the code/data the better.
>
>
> I agree with the 1000 eyeballs - but if they want to enter a bug in the
> tracker, they will have to be willing to register.  I am not aware of
> appreciated open source projects having trouble with 'public' testers
> registering.
On the JEP project I'm involved with in the forum (often used for bug 
reporting) there seems to be about equal numbers of posts from logged in 
users/anonymos users. 90% of bugs come through the forum, 1% or less 
actually use the source forge issue tracker.

> > Only problem is registration restricts entry.
>
>
> How?  It's free and easy and takes a few minutes at most.  If someone is
> only willing to participate anonymously...why is that?
Because thats the way people work. The more steps you need to
 go through to participate the less people will. Take all the "free 
registration required" sites such a NYT, you have two options

1) spend 5 mins registering, try to remember yet another password, worry 
 about privicy.
2) forget about it

In case 1 we get the bug report, case 2 we don't :-(

> I think there's a reason Slashdot has the category 'Anonymous Coward' for
> anonymous blog posts...
We could use such a system.

This does make a problem with currently requiring three different 
registrations. 1 for main site, 2 for wiki, 3 for issue tracker.
It would be nice to use the same login details for all these, but a big 
technical challange.
> > I'm fine with that. Maybe what we need is a user forum which allows
> > people to post bug reports etc.
>
>
> As long as someone is willing to sift through them, verify those that are
> genuine, and put them into the tracker, fine by me.

I guess thats what we'll have to do.

> Otherwise seems like a waste of time.

> > One last Q. What the difference between new and open?
>
>
> New means a tester has entered a bug, that's all, nothing else has
> happened with it.
> Open means it's been recognized as a legit issue of some sort and is in
> progress in some way (assigned to developer, normally).
> Currently the tracker changes New to Open automatically when the first
> comment is entered.  It can also be done manually of course.

Cool.

Rich