Bug 134105
Summary: | add issue tracker ID field to bugzilla | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Community] Bugzilla | Reporter: | Mike MacKenzie <mmackenz> |
Component: | Bugzilla General | Assignee: | Mike MacKenzie <mmackenz> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 2.18 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 2.18-rh | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2004-10-12 15:31:24 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Mike MacKenzie
2004-09-29 16:59:40 UTC
Additional justification forwarded by Nisfan:
Engineers have no way to determine whether a bug comes from an issue
tracker (and hence from a paying customer) or a random user in the
field.
They also have no way to look back to related ITs to see if there is
additional information if they so desire. And most importantly, there is
no for an engineer to see if this is a frequently reported problem (i.e.
if there is one customer report or many). We have hijacked the Alias
field, but this is also used for other purposes, is used inconsistently,
and is frequently overwritten by others.
Many of the tools changes proposed are for support and PM. This one
change would allow individual engineers to more quickly understand
customer impact and hence priority. It's not perfect, but it's the one
little change that I think would get us big gains in the short term.
Make sense?
*** On Sep 24, 2004 at 3:16pm Nisfan Nawaz (nnawaz) wrote:
> Hey Jeff,
>
> We had originally captured the general requirement for Issue Tracker and
> Bugzilla Integration in the medium-term list (see task number MT.3.01).
>
> Is your request for an Issue Tracker field in BZ critical enough to
> included in the short-term list right now or can it remain as part of
> the general requirement in the MT list?
>
> (I am attaching the latest plan for your reference).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nisfan.
>
|