17 years ago
11 years ago


(Reporter: CodeMachine, Unassigned)



(Whiteboard: [people:owner,qa])



17 years ago
Allowing assignee = QA kinda defeats the purpose.

We should prevent this happening.


17 years ago
Depends on: 96635


17 years ago
Priority: -- → P3
Target Milestone: --- → Future

Comment 1

17 years ago
Moving to new Bugzilla product ...
Assignee: justdave → myk
Component: Bugzilla → Creating/Changing Bugs
Product: Webtools → Bugzilla
Version: Bugzilla 2.13 → 2.13

Comment 2

17 years ago
Well, allowing assignee = QA is a very useful feature for testing things without
spamming someone else. Ok, you can always create new accounts, but it can be
kind of inconvenient if you have only very few different email addresses.

Also, in my bugzilla installation there are some areas where I'm really both
default QA contact and default assignee, and I think has the same
setup for some components.

Comment 3

17 years ago
If you're both I suggest you want to leave one blank as there's no point having
verification without it being a separate person.

We could certainly allow an admin to disable this, or make it a SHOULD option
(so it gives a warning but allows it with confirmation).

The important thing here is people don't forget to reassign the QA to someone
different if the QA becomes the assignee.


17 years ago
Whiteboard: [people:owner,qa]

Comment 4

17 years ago
How would you handle an upgrade where the database could already have certain
bugs where the owner and the QA contact are the same?

Comment 5

17 years ago
This would do nothing to fix the problem unless you specified something to do
(eg blank QA).  See bug #96635.  Like other problems hanging off that bug, I
would expect some sort of whining about the problem.


13 years ago
QA Contact: mattyt-bugzilla → default-qa
Target Milestone: Future → ---


12 years ago
Assignee: myk → create-and-change

Comment 6

11 years ago
When the QA decides to fix a bug himself, he will reassign the bug to him. I see nothing wrong with that. And I don't think it worths implementing additional code for that.
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.