>
>I think that there is bug in the Bugs db :). When I posted my bug (on
>blank template in Radio, that is more I guess a feature not really
>implemented than a bug), I had a work-around, so I filled this field.
>But I totally forgot to escape the "<" like in <%bodytext%>. So I had
>to reedit this field. But it seems that once a bug is posted, there
>is no way for the author of the bug to edit the "Additional Details"
>field, you have to create a new one.


Well 2 bugs actually. First is that a typo made the additional
fields not appear on the edit this page form. That's fixed.

Second, that you could not enter html without escaping it, in the
additional info field. I made it possible, but it looks like
Manila/metadata doesn't handle that very gracefully should you want
to edit the report. I'll look into that and fix it.


BTW I hope you don;t mind, you entered your email address without the
com suffix and mail started bouncing , so i fixed it in you
membership entry and the messages you added.

>
>For the field "Software affected", IMO its better to have 3 fields,
>one list field for UserLand product (Frontier, Manila, Radio), one
>field for third parties, and one field called "other" where you can
>enter some text (in case that the third parties fields doesn't have
>the plug-in, tools, suite... listed).

I want to keep to known values so that the search is more likely to
work, but don't have strong feelings about splitting it up. OTOH,
whats' the point, is there a gain? It seems more complicated than
is necessary.

>
>I think the schema is good.
>
>What could be nice is to be able to vote on a bug (something like: "I
>can reproduce this bug: [yes] [no]).
>

What's wrong with hitting annotate and saying "Me too?". Which
allows others to say, "Me too, but only on weekdays with full moons".
which is potentially more useful

Cheers


--

- David Bayly. Programmer and digest reader. dbayly at udena dot ch
Digest Readers do it once a day.

Enclosures

None.  

Replies

None.