Bug 143049 – IBM <-> Red Hat Bugzilla link bug?

Bug 143049 - IBM <-> Red Hat Bugzilla link bug?

Summary:	IBM <-> Red Hat Bugzilla link bug?

Status:	CLOSED DEFERRED

Aliases:	None

Product:	Bugzilla
Classification:	Community
Component:	Bugzilla General (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	2.18
Hardware:	All Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	David Lawrence
QA Contact:
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2004-12-15 18:49 EST by Need Real Name
Modified:	2007-04-18 13:17 EDT (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2005-04-13 10:24:46 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Need Real Name 2004-12-15 18:49:05 EST

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

Description of problem:
I'm not sure what mechanism IBM have for adding their "additional 
comments" to bugzilla (is it an e-mail gateway? it would be 
interesting to know), but Ãt seems it might be broken.

See bug 142862 for an example.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Post a bug about hostnames
2. Get lots of e-mail about kernel hacking
3. Ask what is going on
4. Kernel hacking discussion continues

Additional info:

Comment 1 Need Real Name 2005-01-10 11:03:03 EST

Hello?

Comment 2 Need Real Name 2005-03-08 10:04:09 EST

Lack of interest.

Comment 3 David Lawrence 2005-03-08 10:52:40 EST

Reopening. I apologize that this fell off my radar since I have been
mainly focused on 2.18 BZ bugs trying to get it rolled out asap. Since
the code bases are in most ways different, I have not given enough
attention to older bugs. In my understanding, they are simple just
using a HTTP POST mechanism to add the comments from their internal
BZ. I would hope that in the future they will use the XMLRPC
bugzilla.addComment method to do so which is cleaner. What part of the
conversation in bug 142862 seems broken?

Comment 4 Need Real Name 2005-03-08 12:08:16 EST

> What part of the conversation in 
> bug 142862 seems broken?

All of it! Everything after my initial bug-opening comment has nothing
to do with my bug :/

Comment 5 David Lawrence 2005-03-08 13:48:42 EST

I sent an email to gjohnson@austin.ibm.com to see if he could tell me why their
bug associations are screwed up. Sorry for the inconvenience this is causing.

Dave

Comment 6 Need Real Name 2005-03-25 08:44:41 EST

Did you ever hear back?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.