Closed
Bug 452736
Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
Since update to 3.2, the link "Vote for this bug" is not where voting.html says it should be
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, defect)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
DUPLICATE
of bug 452757
People
(Reporter: tonymec, Unassigned)
Details
Since update to 3.2, the links "Vote for this bug" and "(Who?)" have disappeared (at least from the "Classic" skin). This means it is not possible to vote for a new bug anymore.
Comment 1•16 years ago
|
||
No, there's a (vote) link right there at Importance.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #1)
> No, there's a (vote) link right there at Importance.
Ah, sorry, I checked near the CC link at top right where it used to be, and above the comment box where the "Voting help" page https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=voting.html says it ought to be. This means the latter page is misleading and ought to be updated.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 3•16 years ago
|
||
Reopening per comment 2 and fixing summary to match.
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
Summary: Since update to 3.2, the link "Vote for this bug" has disappeared → Since update to 3.2, the link "Vote for this bug" is not where voting.html says it should be
![]() |
||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Severity: critical → minor
Keywords: dataloss,
regression
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•16 years ago
|
||
This REOPENing makes it appear that the desired action is to move the link to above the comment box, where voting.html says it should be. Another option (which I prefer -- a "vote" link between the last comment and the textarea would seem weird) is to regard this as a documentation bug, in which case this bug (with its original Summary) can be left INVALID, but the bug to fix is bug 452757.
Comment 5•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2)
> This means the latter page is misleading and ought to be updated.
This ^^^ is what I was basing the reopen on (and subsequent modification of the summary). I was intending to have the help page fixed.
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > This means the latter page is misleading and ought to be updated.
>
> This ^^^ is what I was basing the reopen on (and subsequent modification of the
> summary). I was intending to have the help page fixed.
Yes, OTOH when I saw the link existed, I VERIFIED the INVALID resolution, and, on the "one issue, one bug" principle, I opened bug 452757. I suppose my error was that I didn't immediately mention that bug in a comment to this one. From your comment quoted above, I understand that this bug, as morphed, has become a dupe of the other one. I'm duping forward because the other bug has an embryo of a patch and because the reopening and morphing was posterior to the creation of the other bug.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago → 16 years ago
No longer depends on: 452757
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
No longer blocks: bmo-regressions-0808
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•