Bug 143049 - IBM <-> Red Hat Bugzilla link bug?
Summary: IBM <-> Red Hat Bugzilla link bug?
Alias: None
Product: Bugzilla
Classification: Community
Component: Bugzilla General (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: 2.18
Hardware: All Linux
medium vote
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Lawrence
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2004-12-15 23:49 UTC by Need Real Name
Modified: 2007-04-18 17:17 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-04-13 14:24:46 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Need Real Name 2004-12-15 23:49:05 UTC
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 ít seems it might be broken.

See bug 142862 for an example.

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

How reproducible:

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 16:03:03 UTC

Comment 2 Need Real Name 2005-03-08 15:04:09 UTC
Lack of interest.

Comment 3 David Lawrence 2005-03-08 15:52:40 UTC
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 17:08:16 UTC
> 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 18:48:42 UTC
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.


Comment 6 Need Real Name 2005-03-25 13:44:41 UTC
Did you ever hear back?

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