|Summary:||ASTERISK-06011: Mantis Problems|
|Reporter:||Steve Murphy (murf)||Labels:|
|Date Opened:||2006-01-07 09:50:21.000-0600||Date Closed:||2006-02-14 12:57:59.000-0600|
|Description:||The first Problem is that there is no bug category for the Mantis system!|
If there are any problems, requests, complaints, there is no category for bugs in the bug system!
The second problem is that Mantis will not allow the person who created a bug report to delete attachments they themselves attached. I consider this to be a bug in either Mantis, or the configuration thereof. As a bug reporter, I know I can delete my own previous comments, and at least in advanced mode, I have links to click to delete attachments, but I get "access denied". So, if you don't think bug reporters should be able to delete their own (or even other's attachments) from their own bug report, then at least remove the "delete" link, as it is misleading in such a case.
|Comments:||By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2006-01-09 10:00:33.000-0600|
By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2006-02-13 16:38:32.000-0600
I will not allow the reporter to delete their own attachments, because for disclaimed patches that is our evidence it was uploaded via this system.
As far as taking away the 'delete' links, I'm not going to make our web team spend their time on that... file a problem report with the Mantis project programmers about the links being visible without permissions :-)
By: Steve Murphy (murf) 2006-02-14 08:53:36.000-0600
I was highly tempted to just let this issue die-- really, if that's the way you want to run it, then that's that. But, I'd like to inject this one thought...
I can see the sense of keeping attachments for historical reasons, but I've been involved in enough bugs where newer versions of a patch are constantly required, and soon the set of attachments gets very confusing. What's current, what's old? And I, the submitter, am either being requested to list out what should stay or what should go, or I'm begging for someone to clean things up to keep down the confusion.
Requiring an intermediary isn't bad practice, but it isn't efficient, either.
If you need the patch for documentation, then I might suggest that you allow the submitter to clean the attachments, but as soon as the patch is closed, the submitter loses the rights to remove the patches at that time. Even if re-opened. Or some other intermediate stage in the process. That way, you guys don't have to act as janitors for dozens of active bugs, and you still get your patches for history, that can't be retroactively removed.
I'll understand if you reclose this without comment. Just injecting a thought here...
By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2006-02-14 12:57:59.000-0600
I don't disagree with your point, but I think we need to just put it aside for right now... I'd rather spend the time working a better issue tracker than trying to improve this one any more than we already have :-)