On 11 April 2013 11:27, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Joe Dreimann < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> No objection to that. >>> >>> Two questions: >>> 1) Was it the error report that got the user to think it is a Trac >>> problem? Do we need to amend this? >>> >> >> I suspect most users don't look very closely at the content of the error >> report. The Internal Error page has a link for opening an issue on >> trac.edgewall.org, which populates the ticket description with the >> user's Trac configuration. The user only has to click two buttons to create >> a ticket on trac.edgewall.org. I suspect that in most cases, the user >> doesn't carefully consider where the ticket should be reported, but just >> clicks the two buttons to create a ticket. However, we can change where >> that ticket is created with a small change to the Trac source. >> > This sounds like an important thing for us to do. Great suggestion Ryan.
>> >>> 2) Should we encourage people using bloodhound to raise all issues to us >>> (incl likely Trac ones)? >>> >> >> There is some relevant discussion about that in [1]. It appears to be >> possible to change where the `Create` button direct to. I tried modifying >> the `default_tracker` variable [2], and it appears to work as advertized. >> In the case that the reporter has an account on >> issues.apache.org/bloodhound and is already logged-in, the ticket would >> be easily created in the Bloodhound issue tracker. If the user is not >> logged-in to i.a.o/bloodhound, they land on the login page, however even >> after logging-in they are not redirected to the /newticket page with a >> populated form. That may just be a separate issue we need to address to >> make the error reporting process go more smoothly. >> > Can we pass a key or something similar along in the URL that allows users to anonymously create tickets? I'm aware that this is a potential avenue for spam bots, but I still firmly believe that spam bots are technical/management issues for us to solve, and we should not to discourage users with our prevention methods as we're doing at the moment. After changing the `default_tracker` variable, there may still be some >> cases that the `Create` button causes issues to be reported to trac-hacks >> [3]. >> >> >>> I would say yes to the second one because so far we've always kept >>> tickets like that open as a reference and raised one upstream. For users >>> that makes our site a single point of contact, and we know what it is >>> upstream that affects them. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Joe >>> >> >> That sounds good to me as well. The argument for single point of contact >> seems like a good one. >> >> [1] http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/10898 >> [2] >> http://trac.edgewall.org/browser/tags/trac-1.0.1/trac/web/main.py?marks=55-58#L53 >> [3] >> http://trac.edgewall.org/browser/tags/trac-1.0.1/trac/web/main.py?marks=554#L546 >> > > > A comment in t.e.o #11147 also suggests setting [project] admin_trac_url > to point to the Bloodhound issues tracker. > http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracIni#project-section > Cheers, Joe
