Re: bugzilla account removal

["Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>]

On 2/19/07, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:
> Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >> This bugzilla
> >> account can of course be removed, but another can be readded instantly
> >> at the same or a different email address.
> >
> > I understand this.  But then this is sufficient evidence to show to the
> > ISP that this person is misusing his net access.
>
> Escalating to his ISP seems a bit excessive.  When I've searched for
> his name in Gcc and glibc bugzillas his bug reports and comments seem
> generally on-topic.  In this case it seems we have two stubborn Germans
> disagreeing over the meaning of "WONTFIX" ...  However, as
> maintainer you should be allowed to interpret "WONTFIX" for your
> project - and I think your interpretation is a reasonable one.
> (There is a practical goal of being able to use BugZilla to keep
> track of what needs to be done.   It seems reasonable to me that
> wishlist items with no commitment get marked as WONTFIX, though
> tweaking priorities/severities is another approach.)
>
> I.e.  I agree you're entitled to close the bug, but I think the issue
> can be resolved with a little diplomacy.  I can send him an email
> telling he why he should desist, if you don't mind.
> --

What he said.

I do plan on upgrading our bugzilla installs to a version that does
actually allow real "banning" (Right now we can only disable
accounts).

I'm simply waiting for the promised release of 3.0 (new dev version
came out on the 12th, so hopefully not too long) which will allow
serving multiple bugzillae from the same install.

This will finally let me merge the sources and gcc bugzilla *code*
trees, without having to merge the actual bugzilla db's.

This is why sources never gets upgraded, btw.  Doing the merge work