Proposition: Restrict dupe-ing ability to bugsquad members

[ville palo]

Hi

I think you are talking about me :(
I'm terribly sorry about extra work I was causing by doing this.
It was not my intention. I really thought that they were duplicates,
because backtrace looked so similar.

I'm trying to find these bugs and change them back to non-dupes.

My intentions were not malicious, I was just too hasty and now I'm 
so sorry about this. I think it would be very good to have this kind
of restriction because there might be lots of others like me :)
 

On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 13:16 +0100, Vassilis Pandis wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> A few days ago a bug triager (who's not on the bugsquad or QA team) silently marked a number of
> ubiquity bugs as duplicates. The bugs were wrongly marked, and no explanation was given by the
> triager as to why they were marked, possible workarounds (etc. i.e. no comment whatsoever). I
> unmarked these bug reports and asked him on a bug report on what criteria the bugs were duped, but
> haven't received a reply yet.
> 
> I am thus proposing that the ability to mark as duplicates is restricted to only members of the
> bugsquad. Tracking down bugs that were wrongly marked as duplicates is time consuming and causes
> an uneccessary amount of bugmail. As a reporter, I would feel offended if my bug report was marked
> as a dupe without even receiving an explanation. The rationale behind this is that marking a bug
> as a duplicate is not something that a total newbie should be doing (can they read backtraces?
> have they taken the time to read the relevant wiki pages ?).
> 
> The only case as far as I can tell, in which such a restriction is not desirable is when the same
> reporter accidentally submits the bug report twice. This is quite a marginal case though and can
> be treated easily.
> 
> Finally, this incident only makes me worry: What will be done in the case of a malicious "attack"
> on Malone? If suddenly somebody (for whatever reason) decided to mark 100 bugs as duplicates,
> confirm/reject another 100, we would evidently have a problem. (I know this has been discussed in
> the past, but after this I feel obliged to raise it again)
> 
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Pandis
> 
> 
> PS: I fixed all ubiquity bugs to which I was subscribed but I currently I don't have time to go
> through all the recently changed ubiquity bugs. 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
>