From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>,
David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,
Overseers <overseers@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 20:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3k254sned.fsf@pepe.airs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705251639310.31135@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> (Joseph Myers's message of "Thu, 25 May 2017 16:40:56 +0000")
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> Instead there we allow users to create all of their own accounts, but by
>> default you don't get editbugs. You have to have someone grant you editbugs,
>> and that can be done by anyone else who previously had editbugs, so you can
>> just email the list and someone will quickly bless you.
>>
>> Is the account creation still an anti-spam tactic?
>>
>> I think it's a terrible one, the editbugs removal seems to have worked much
>> better. Now spammers cant change any existing bugs. They can still file
>> new bugs, which we can zap entirely.
>
> Spammers were filing new spam bugs about as fast as contrib/mark_spam.py
> could mark them as spam.
Personally, I think the ideal approach would be if bugzilla supported a
moderation strategy. Anybody could create an account, but the first
time they filed a bug, or commented on a bug, their change would be held
for moderation. If a moderator approved a change, their subsequent
changes would flow automatically. If the moderator blocked the change,
the account would be disabled. Then we would only require a few people
to periodically moderate new bugzilla users.
But that is just a wish. I have no reason to believe that bugzilla
supports this approach.
Ian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-25 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-25 16:07 David Edelsohn
2017-05-25 16:26 ` Joseph Myers
2017-05-25 16:37 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-05-25 16:41 ` Joseph Myers
2017-05-25 20:16 ` Ian Lance Taylor [this message]
2017-05-25 20:35 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2017-05-25 21:36 ` Frédéric Buclin via overseers
2017-05-31 11:54 ` David Edelsohn
2017-05-31 12:38 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-05-31 12:41 ` David Edelsohn
2017-05-31 13:14 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2017-05-31 13:22 ` David Edelsohn
2017-05-31 14:39 ` Christopher Faylor
2017-05-31 14:49 ` David Edelsohn
2017-06-01 14:19 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-01 14:44 ` Christopher Faylor
2017-06-01 14:53 ` David Edelsohn
2017-06-01 19:56 ` Christopher Faylor
2017-06-05 15:39 ` David Edelsohn
2017-06-05 15:49 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2017-06-16 22:02 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2017-06-17 12:07 ` David Edelsohn
2017-06-20 22:40 ` David Edelsohn
2017-06-21 22:02 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2017-06-23 13:39 ` David Edelsohn
2017-07-13 18:29 ` David Edelsohn
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-12-12 15:53 gcc bugzilla accounts Damien Ruscoe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3k254sned.fsf@pepe.airs.com \
--to=ian@airs.com \
--cc=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=overseers@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).