On Fri, 07 May 2004 09:56:45 +0100
Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Tim Peters wrote:
> > While that *should* be a good example, it isn't:  I only knew that
> > bug existed because someone closed it on Bug Day (and I'm subscribed
> > to the Collectors, and read the email they generate).
> *bangs head against desk*
> > Some bugs are so vaguely described nobody could guess -- and when
> > they're anonymous too, there's no effective way to get more info. 
> > Those ought to be closed.
> Indeed.
> How about removing the ability for people to post bugs withotu
> specifying n email address? And, if they do specify an email address,
> using that to contact them by sending notification mails to it?

No, some very valuable bugs are submitted anonymously. People can be
very paranoid (rightly) about their privacy. We do want to encourage bug
submissions even if that means more noise.

AFAIK the collector does mail the poster on state change if they have an
email address.
> For all I know, this happens already, but people don't perceive it as
> happening so the ythink "anonymous" bug postings will never be heard
> from and so close them straight away as "anonymous, therefor we don't
> care"

Nope, many times we do care. But when we don't we will close them.

To be clear: big -1 on restricting anonymous posting


Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to