|Summary:||There is only 'Individual Port(s)' in 'Component' field of 'Ports & Packages' bug submitting form.|
|Product:||Services||Reporter:||Yasuhiro Kimura <yasu>|
|Component:||Bug Tracker||Assignee:||Bugmeister <bugmeister>|
|Severity:||Affects Only Me||CC:||iblis.dif01, lantw44|
Description Yasuhiro Kimura 2018-05-26 14:55:44 UTC
Created attachment 193713 [details] Screen shot of bug submitting form. Steps: 1. Access FreeBSD Bugzilla (https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/). 2. Login with registered account. 3. Select 'New'. 4. Select 'Ports & Packages'. Then there is only 'Individual Port(s)' in 'Component' field. Attached file is screen shot of bug submitting form.
Comment 1 Kubilay Kocak 2018-05-28 11:05:01 UTC
Access to view other components was restricted as a solution in bug 198411, so this issue is technically 'works as intended'. However ... I happen to not agree with that particular solution, and would have preferred considering, or at least thinking about the real underlying cause(s), and alternate methods to reduce/eliminate false positives, rather than a blanket restriction. Further, since the change, we have the exact same issue but in the opposite direction: 'ports framework' bug reports/patches, incorrectly being put into 'individual ports' and having to be reassigned. This time however, the missclassification is forced by the lack of alternative (visible) components, rather than imprescise/overlapping/unclear component names I believe the underlying root cause is the ambiguity of the term 'ports framework', since to the uninitiated (read: non committers), all ports / any ports, and issues for them, can appear to come under that banner. Accordingly it would great to put some actual effort into thinking about and understanding the actual information//taxonomical problem, and solving the underlying ambiguities in whatever way to help users make more informed and more accurate 'category' choices.