Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bugzilla Help"
m |
m (Shouldl have a .sig now...) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
/sbin/e-smith/audittools/newrpms | /sbin/e-smith/audittools/newrpms | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
| − | Some of the other fields ought to be marked optional. If I'm only verifying a bug I don't have enough information to get involved in changelog entries, release notes or documentation. I also feel it's up to some one further up the tree to set bug flags. | + | Some of the other fields ought to be marked optional. If I'm only verifying a bug I don't have enough information to get involved in changelog entries, release notes or documentation. I also feel it's up to some one further up the tree to set bug flags.[[User:Allsorts|Allsorts]] ([[User talk:Allsorts|talk]]) 11:20, 6 January 2015 (CET) |
Latest revision as of 11:20, 6 January 2015
The template layout for bug verification differs from that template proposed here: http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:Documentation:QA:Verification Which is it to be? Terry Fage (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2013 (MST)
Donno Terry ... Just come across this page and the one over in documentation. As posted into devinfo:
What would be really useful and lower the barrier imposed (for good reasons) by having to use it would be a version with guidance for each section that can be copy 'n pasted into bugzilla.
The full example on http://wiki.contribs.org/Bugzilla_Help#Verifying_Bugs is close to meeting that requirement.
By "guidance" I mean the commands to run to gather the system information, or show the version of the affected package, for example
= ENVIRONMENT: Post the output from these commands: cat /etc/*-release uname -mrs /sbin/e-smith/audittools/newrpms
Some of the other fields ought to be marked optional. If I'm only verifying a bug I don't have enough information to get involved in changelog entries, release notes or documentation. I also feel it's up to some one further up the tree to set bug flags.Allsorts (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2015 (CET)
