bugzilla account removal

bugzilla account removal

[Ulrich Drepper]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 299 bytes --]

I need a bugzilla account removed.  Somebody cannot except that he's
talking nonsense and constantly reopens bugs.  Can somebody please remove

  matthias.andree@gmx.de

or let me know how I can do it?

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: bugzilla account removal

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

> [...] Can somebody please remove
>   matthias.andree@gmx.de
> or let me know how I can do it?

I know of no way to permanently disable this person's access (without
much collateral damage e.g.  due to IP-level blockage).  This bugzilla
account can of course be removed, but another can be readded instantly
at the same or a different email address.

- FChE

Re: bugzilla account removal

[Ulrich Drepper]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 377 bytes --]

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.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: bugzilla account removal

[Per Bothner]

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.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

Re: bugzilla account removal

[Ulrich Drepper]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 207 bytes --]

Per Bothner wrote:
> I can send him an email
> telling he why he should desist, if you don't mind.

Feel free.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: bugzilla account removal

[Daniel Berlin]

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