On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 16:40 +0200, Erich Focht wrote: > > A more general comment: what is the use of invisible bugs, anyway?
You have to remember that we have customers who have sensitive data. Sometimes they need to share this data with us and yet not have it publicly consumable. > I > suppose the bug has been set "private" by the reporter. Likely. > Wouldn't it > actually make sense to have all bugs open, such that others are warned > of the issue? Ideally, yes, of course. But given that there are users that are going to have sensitive data, providing a means for them to share that with us in order to help identify and fix a bug is a better choice than having them refrain from reporting the bug because they have no way to provide the data we need to debug it. Wouldn't you agree? > Guess if somebody doesn't want to disclose the company > on behalf of which the bug was reported, a mechanism for anonymizing the > reporter would make more sense. Company may be one thing they want to remain secret, but more likely it's the actual data they don't want publicly viewable -- the data without which we can't fix the bug. Not all data can simply be "anonymized". > Anyway, I feel like hiding bugs is bad > in an open source project. As I said, yes, it is not ideal, but is a better situation than just not having bugs reported. In your particular case, when you reported your bug, work was already under way solving the problem in the private bug. Ultimately that is good news for you as it will ultimately reduce the time until you will see a fix from what it would have been would that bug reporter have not bothered reporting it due to not being able to provide the information needed for us to debug it. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss