Rephrase section 3.9 regarding access control on secure bugs

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 2.16

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
15 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: timeless, Assigned: shane.h.w.travis)

Tracking

unspecified
Bugzilla 2.16

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(2 attachments, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

15 years ago
> Note that group permissions are such that you need to be a member of all the
groups a bug is in, for whatever reason, to see that bug.

There's a checkbox to allow others on the cc list to see a bug, that should be
mentioned,

probably something like:
An exception can be made on a per bug basis to allow the CC list to see the bug.
(Assignee)

Comment 1

14 years ago
Created attachment 164290 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch against 2.18 and tip documentation

A note cautioning people about CC List (and reporter, which the OP hadn't
mentioned), and how to work around it.
(Assignee)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164290 - Flags: review?(documentation)

Comment 2

14 years ago
While you are at at....  don't forget the assignee
(Assignee)

Comment 3

14 years ago
Created attachment 164297 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.18 and tip, try #2

Wasn't including the Assignee since you can't override him/her, but you're
right... it's worth noting. New patch.
Attachment #164290 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164297 - Flags: review?(documentation)
(Reporter)

Updated

14 years ago
Assignee: documentation → travis
(Reporter)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164290 - Flags: review?(documentation)

Comment 4

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 164297 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.18 and tip, try #2

r=vladd. I'd use normal capitalization for Assignee, Reporter and such, and
remove the comma before the quote.
Attachment #164297 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 5

14 years ago
In response to your comments:
1) Everywhere on a bug that the word 'reporter' or 'cc' is used, it is 
capitalized. 'Assignee' isn't, but Assigned To is, hence my capitalization of 
that term as well. Given this, why would I use lower case in the documentation?

2) I could argue with you over whether or not the comma is necessary before 
this particular set of quotes... but 
    s/that starts, "Users/that starts with "Users/ 
and I think we'll both be happy.

3) SGML question: should I have used <quote></quote> in this section instead of 
just " " to enclose it? I see both used in the documents; which one are we 
working towards and which ones are we working away from?

4) Procedural: once I get a response to these questions, do I make a new patch 
and put it here, or does it just 'get done' before it is committed to CVS?

5) Procedural #2: I've accepted the bug; once everything is done, do I mark it 
FIXED, or (I remember reading somewhere) is it a bad idea to do that before it 
gets added to CVS, lest it get lost? If the latter, what DO I do?

Thx for the review. Sorry for sounding like a noob... but I am, as far as bmo 
goes. Trying to help, though, and everyone's gotta start somewhere. :)
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

Comment 6

14 years ago
Hi Shane, thanks for your enthusiam!

Could you check if the wording remains true for the 2.16 release as well, or
it's true only starting with 2.18, and set the target milestone accordingly to that?

If it's true for 2.16 as well, does the patch still apply or we need another one?

It would be cool to look into those two issues. :-)

Regarding 5), usually the one that commits the patch into the CVS marks the bug
as FIXED. The author gets mentioned as Assignee in the bug, and specified in the
cvs log by the CVS commiter.

Regarding 4), it depends on the reviewer. For example sometimes he can say
"r=xxx with the spelling fixed" or something similar. In other situations, a new
patch is required (e.g.: when someone proposed large changes compared to the
attachment that received r+, or when the review was an r-, or when it's a
security bug and we want the patch to apply cleanly for all the world interested
in manually patching their systems).

I agree with 1 and 2.
(those were nits anyway, meaning I don't specifically care strongly about one
way or another, therefore the r+ :) )

Regarding 3, I think <quote></quote> would be suitable because it specifies the
type of the content and therefore special styling can be applied to it. A new
patch with 2) and 3) could do the trick! :)
OS: Windows XP → All
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: 3.9 section is wrong in its absolute statement → Rephrase section 3.9 regarding access control on secure bugs
(Assignee)

Comment 7

14 years ago
Created attachment 164329 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.18 and tip, try #3

Fixed the quotes and the comma. Should be good to go!
Attachment #164297 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Comment 8

14 years ago
Created attachment 164330 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.16

Same additional information, but 2.18 patch wouldnt have worked because the
surrounding context is different.
(Assignee)

Comment 9

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 164329 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.18 and tip, try #3

Okay, noobness showing up here again... is it necessary to set the '?' flag
again in a case like this? (I figure better safe than sorry...)
Attachment #164329 - Flags: review?(documentation)
(Assignee)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164330 - Flags: review?(documentation)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164329 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+

Comment 10

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 164330 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.16

Unless another reviewer said you can carry over his review, generally you can't
review+ your own patch.

If an attachment is not reviewed, ready to be reviewed, and needs reviewed to
be checked in, it's better to request the flag :-)
Attachment #164330 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+

Updated

14 years ago
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16

Comment 11

14 years ago
Checking in docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v  <-- 
administration.xml
new revision: 1.13.2.15; previous revision: 1.13.2.14
done

Checking in docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v  <-- 
administration.xml
new revision: 1.34.2.2; previous revision: 1.34.2.1
done

Checking in docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v  <-- 
administration.xml
new revision: 1.38; previous revision: 1.37
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 14 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.