Display Bugzilla version in a public place on Bugzilla installs

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 3.0



User Interface
12 years ago
6 years ago


(Reporter: Vlad Dascalu, Assigned: Frédéric Buclin)


Bugzilla 3.0
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
approval +



(1 attachment)



12 years ago
Bug 340426 comment 16.

Comment 1

12 years ago
From IRC:

<LpSolit> how many softwares display their version everywhere?
<justdave> hmm, yeah, I suppose so.  most web apps I've used to have to go in some admin page to see the version number
<justdave> I still think it's cool to be able to go to a site and know what version they're using
<LpSolit> to more easily know which security holes are still present for that version? ;)
<LpSolit> Wurblzap, kiko, what do you think about displaying the Bugzilla version in the banner?
<Wurblzap> I like it, but I don't mind if it gets removed per default. I can re-add it easily.
<Wurblzap> In own installations, that is.
<LpSolit> right
<LpSolit> moreover, if an admin customises his installation, is it still true to say "Bugzilla 2.22"? ;)
<LpSolit> or should it be 2.22.patched4-2 or something like that?
<kiko> LpSolit, I'd much rather we got rid of it and put it somewhere inconspicuous such as an HTML comment.
<kiko> no user needs to be reminded that 100 times a day

Comment 2

12 years ago
No. If you modify the kernel source and recompile it, it still says "2.6.16" or whatever when you boot it. Yes, even the Linux kernel displays its version.

We need to add this back in a visible place, which is not config.cgi.

Comment 3

12 years ago
Having the version on all pages seems useless to me. Having it displayed on index.cgi seems enough. Meaning I don't think we should have it in the banner. But I don't really care about the future of this bug... as long as the UI remains pretty. ;)
moved from bug 340426:

(In reply to comment #12)
> b.m.o. does display it, even if it's relatively small (and right centered).
> > This is useless
> It is of critical importance in my opinion, since I can google "Bugzilla 2.18",
> "Bugzilla 2.20" and see deployment statistics for free.

Please, think for a second about what you just said... And it is: "It's critical importance to add another visible point of default User Interface of Bugzilla, because then you can google it". How does it sound now?

justdave: And you really believe that if we'd like to choose 10 visual objects that should fight on default screen for user focus, one of them should be bugzilla version. Right? It means, from usability point of view, that at least one of the main target groups of this app, has one of the main goals in use Bugzilla in finding out what is the version of Bugzilla he is using... risky statement ;)

My proposal for Bugzilla version positioning is here: http://landfill.mozilla.org/gandui/ ;)
<thinking out loud>

how about an "about" page, which displays:

  - bugzilla logo
  - brief description of bugzilla
  - link to bugzilla.org
  - link to online help
  - installed version
  - administrator's name and email
  - other admin-defined content


Comment 6

12 years ago
I've adjusted the summary since "add back" was not exactly suitable for all the possible scenarios in which this bug might end up fixed.
Summary: Add back the bugzilla version → Display Bugzilla version in a public place on Bugzilla installs

Comment 7

12 years ago
I agree that Bugzilla should show what version it is. The way that b.m.o does it isn't so bad.
(In reply to comment #1)
> <LpSolit> to more easily know which security holes are still present for that
> version? ;)

You can always simply try whether you can exploit a hole. So it doesn't make it less safe if the version is known, does it?

Comment 9

12 years ago
Indeed. Security though obscurity is really no security at all.

To quote Gerv :), >> Isn't that like saying "Surely having an insecure front door makes having secure windows even more important"? <<

Comment 10

12 years ago
Created attachment 225554 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1

The version is added to the header on the homepage.
Attachment #225554 - Flags: review?(vladd)

Comment 11

12 years ago
Comment on attachment 225554 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1

global/header.html.tmpl is such a hack! Using <h3> in this way is evil :)

I guess this will do... although I must mention that by applying this patch, we get <h1>, <h3> and no <h2> in the Bugzilla homepage (which is awful from a headline-wise structural HTML point of view).
Attachment #225554 - Flags: review?(vladd) → review+


12 years ago
Assignee: ui → LpSolit
Flags: approval?
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.24

Comment 12

12 years ago
I submitted bug 341869 as a follow-up.
Heh.  I kinda like Gandalf's version with it in tiny type at the bottom of the footer. :)

But this is all UI semantics, and we're redoing the UI pretty soon anyway, so I don't really care what we do short term as long as we don't break functionality ;)
Flags: approval? → approval+

Comment 14

12 years ago
Checking in template/en/default/index.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/index.html.tmpl,v  <--  index.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.27; previous revision: 1.26
Last Resolved: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED


12 years ago
Blocks: 341931
Blocks: 728844
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.