Closed
Bug 302448
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Update Release Notes and New Features Page for Bugzilla 2.20
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Documentation, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.20
People
(Reporter: mkanat, Assigned: mkanat)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
3.33 KB,
patch
|
LpSolit
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
We actually accidentally added a feature to 2.20rc2 -- the csv_colsepchar pref.
(Had I realized that's what the bug was doing, I would have marked the blockers
differently, but it's what we did and I don't think it's such a bad thing anyhow.)
So at least that needs to be updated, and maybe I can get that FIXME fixed. (Not
saying that *I'm* going to do this...) :-)
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Summary: Update Release Notes for Bugzilla 2.20rc2 → Update Release Notes and New Features Page for Bugzilla 2.20rc2
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
OK, so I'm just going to retarget this bug at 2.20 in general, since it's not
something we actually definitely need done before 2.20rc2.
Flags: blocking2.20+
Summary: Update Release Notes and New Features Page for Bugzilla 2.20rc2 → Update Release Notes and New Features Page for Bugzilla 2.20
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.20
Version: 2.21 → 2.20
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Please ensure that the email for Windows section is updated (i.e. section
section 2.4.1.3).
This is needed, especially with the ambiguity over sendmail, which, according
to Bug 302418, has now been renabled for the final 2.20 release.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Edward: This bug is just about the Release Notes, not about the documentation.
If you'd like to see that change in the documentation, please file a bug or find
one that's already been filed and comment on it.
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
For "Environment Variable" Authentication Method", add...
To use this, set the "user_info_class" parameter to "ENV" and, at a minimum, set
the "auth_env_email" parameter to the name of the vaiable that passes the
authenticated user (usually "REMOTE_USER"). If your webserver knows users'
real names as well, also set the "auth_env_realname" parameter. If you are
using a true single-signon system that assigns an identifier that indentifies an
individual even across changes of email address, then set "auth_env_id" to that
variable.
VISIBILITY GROUPS:
It is now possible to prevent users from encountering all other users when using
user-matching or drop-down userlists. To enable this restriction, enable the
"usevisibilitygroups" parameter. Once this is enabled, each group's permissions
will include a new column for visible. The members of any group for which the
group being edited is visible will be able to user-match this groups's users or
see them in dropdown lists.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
OK, here we go! :-)
![]() |
||
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 198040 [details] [diff] [review]
2.20 Release Notes
looks good
Attachment #198040 -
Flags: review?(LpSolit) → review+
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4)
> VISIBILITY GROUPS:
>
> It is now possible to prevent users from encountering all other users when using
> user-matching or drop-down userlists. To enable this restriction, enable the
> "usevisibilitygroups" parameter. Once this is enabled, each group's permissions
> will include a new column for visible. The members of any group for which the
> group being edited is visible will be able to user-match this groups's users or
> see them in dropdown lists.
I'm having trouble understanding how this works or what it does. My big problem
is in this sentence:
>>The members of any group for which the group
>>being edited is visible will be able to
>>user-match this groups's users or see them
>>in dropdown lists.
Should that second word "group" be bug? If I understood the feature, I'd be
happy to suggest a better wording, but I just don't get it.
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Hey Bruce. No, groups are visible to other groups. :-) Visibility protects
groups of users from other groups of users.
You may be right about that wording being confusing. I'd already checked-in the
code by the time you commented, though. But feel free to file another bug on it,
or come into IRC and talk to me about it and we can work out a better wording.
tip:
Checking in docs/rel_notes.txt;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/rel_notes.txt,v <-- rel_notes.txt
new revision: 1.34; previous revision: 1.33
done
2.20:
Checking in docs/rel_notes.txt;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/rel_notes.txt,v <-- rel_notes.txt
new revision: 1.32.2.2; previous revision: 1.32.2.1
done
Updated the New Features page on landfill.bugzilla.org/bugzilla.org/, and will
commit it along with the rest of the site updates.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
No biggie. Wouldn't want to hold up the release over wordsmithing - even if it
is more fun than the timesheets I should be doing. I'll poke at it and see if I
understand it, then submit a new bug if I think I can improve on it.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•