Update documentation for Enterprise Groups

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 2.18

Status

()

Bugzilla
Documentation
P2
enhancement
RESOLVED FIXED
15 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: Joel Peshkin, Assigned: Joel Peshkin)

Tracking

2.17
Bugzilla 2.18
Other
Other
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
approval +

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 5 obsolete attachments)

(Assignee)

Description

15 years ago
This will be the parent bug for documentation changes related to enterprise
group support.

This includes....

> 55 (hierarchichal) groups.
Rearchitected product groups.
Private comments and attachments
(Assignee)

Comment 1

15 years ago
Also need to include some usage scenarios
Priority: -- → P2
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Depends on: 143826, 147275, 157756
(Assignee)

Comment 2

15 years ago
Created attachment 105056 [details]
Very rough outline/start on document
(Assignee)

Comment 3

15 years ago
Created attachment 109967 [details] [diff] [review]
documentation patch part 1

This describes the changes from rearchitected product groups
It may need further elaboration, but rreplaces incorrect stuff with up-to-date
stuff
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Attachment #109967 - Flags: review?(matthew)
Comment on attachment 109967 [details] [diff] [review]
documentation patch part 1

>+        <command>useentrygroupdefault</command>:
>         Bugzilla Products can have a group associated with them, so that
>         certain users can only see bugs in certain products. When this parameter
>-        is set to <quote>on</quote>, this places all newly-created bugs in the
>-        group for their product immediately.</para>
>+        is set to <quote>on</quote>, this causes the default association
>+        between prodycts and groups to place all newly-created bugs in the
		  ^^^^^^^^
s/prodycts/products/

>+        group for their product (same name) immediately.</para>
>       </step>

The resulting above paragraph makes very little sense to me.  Care to elaborate
a little?  (What you're saying sounds like a more wordy way to state the same
thing that was already there before)

The rest of it looks good to me.
Attachment #109967 - Flags: review?(matthew) → review-
(Assignee)

Comment 5

15 years ago
Created attachment 109968 [details] [diff] [review]
doc patch rev 2
Attachment #109967 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Attachment #109968 - Flags: review?(matthew)

Comment 6

15 years ago
The content seems correct, but you have a syntax problem.  You must use <quote>
and </quote>, rather than "something", for syntactically valid Docbook XML. 
Many parsers transliterate a quote into &quot; for HTML translation, but other
ones (notably, PDF and PS) sometimes have strange goofiness when you do it wrong.

I know it's wrong elsewhere in the Guide, I aim to clean those up :)
Flags: approval-
Barnboy: wrong checkbox. :)  Go into Edit next to the attachment in question,
and hit the box next to review in there :-)
Flags: approval-
Comment on attachment 109968 [details] [diff] [review]
doc patch rev 2

per barnboy's comment
Attachment #109968 - Flags: review?(matthew) → review-
(Assignee)

Comment 9

15 years ago
Created attachment 109971 [details] [diff] [review]
patch with quoting fixed
Attachment #109968 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Attachment #109971 - Flags: review?(matthew)
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Attachment #109971 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #109971 - Flags: review?(matthew)
(Assignee)

Comment 10

15 years ago
Created attachment 109980 [details] [diff] [review]
One more quoting fix
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Attachment #109980 - Flags: review?(matthew)
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Attachment #109980 - Flags: review?(matthew) → review?(preed)

Comment 11

15 years ago
Comment on attachment 109980 [details] [diff] [review]
One more quoting fix

I should have noticed this when I compiled before, but I didn't.  There are
some docbook compliation errors with this patch.  They all seem to be centered
around the fact that the text inside the <listitem/> must also be enclosed in a
<para/> tag.

>Index: docs//sgml/administration.sgml
>===================================================================
>+    <orderedlist>
>+      <listitem>
>+        required for bug entry, 
>+      </listitem>

Should be:
    <orderedlist>
      <listitem>
	<para>
	  required for bug entry,
	</para>
      </listitem>

And so on down the line.
Attachment #109980 - Flags: review?(preed) → review-
(Assignee)

Comment 12

15 years ago
Created attachment 110256 [details] [diff] [review]
fixed para tags
Attachment #105056 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #109980 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Comment 13

15 years ago
Comment on attachment 110256 [details] [diff] [review]
fixed para tags

Jake: If you pass this, please add a request for JayPee.
Attachment #110256 - Flags: review?(jake)

Comment 14

15 years ago
Comment on attachment 110256 [details] [diff] [review]
fixed para tags

OK, this looks good to me.
Attachment #110256 - Flags: review?(preed)
Attachment #110256 - Flags: review?(jake)
Attachment #110256 - Flags: review+
Comment on attachment 110256 [details] [diff] [review]
fixed para tags

Read through the changes for content only; looked good to me. r=preed
Attachment #110256 - Flags: review?(preed)
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: approval?
nit: what's the behaviour of useentrygroupdefault if makeproductgroups is off? 
If it's ignored in that situation, then it probably ought to say so in the docs.
 I won't let that stop checkin though.  If you want to fix that before checking
in, go for it, just ensure that it compiles.
Flags: approval? → approval+
(Assignee)

Comment 17

15 years ago
checked in
further additions will be needed and will be done under another bug.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.