On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:09 -0400, Francis J. Lacoste wrote: > Thanks for this thorough analysis. One thing that I'm not clear on: > with > your new rules, are we dropping the support for public security bug? > (A > bug marked as a security vulnerability but is not private?) > > Or would they just become "public bug" as part of your rules?
A public security bug? hmm In my rules it is effectively security, not public, so only the security role can access it. Are you talking about the case of after a security bug is fixed? I had not considered that. We could say private + security is required to make the bug visible to only the security team. This works without a schema change, but it effectively make the two bools act as a 3 state enum. -- __Curtis C. Hovey_________ http://launchpad.net/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
