On 12-05-11 09:12 AM, curtis Hovey wrote: >> > >> > Firstly, I don't see why we would conflate subscription and access for >> > any bugs; lets keep them clean and separate - even on a proprietary >> > bug, a third party may have access, but not want all the chatter. They >> > might be working a queue of bugs and have no desire or interest in >> > discussion on a given bug until they come to it in their queue. Its >> > not up to us to pre-decide this. > We are not conflating subscription and access. There is no use case for > bug-only access without subscription. The only case where a user needs > exceptional access to a bug is to participate in the conversation to fix > it. The UI does not need to be more complicated.
I agree with Curtis, at the model level the two things are still separated. _We could implement a workflow_ where exceptional access is granted without subscription. It's just that we are choosing not to do this at this stage. I don't want to increase project scope. This project has been going for long enough as it is. We should focus on the important thing which is delivering good private projects for OEM. Managing indivual access to bugs without a subscription isn't a requirement. And if it ever become one, we'll do it another time. (They can always mute their subsription anyway.) Cheers -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
