We should allow users to manually input a linked bug and better present both the create and link options
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Errors |
Confirmed
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
[16:48:21] <mterry> ev, OK, so two problems then: I don't see the create link on the front page and I want to be able to link a report and a bug, not create a new one
[16:51:20] <mterry> ev, OK, so best way to link to an existing bug for someone like me seems to be to intentionally create a dup, then mark it as such.
[16:52:03] <mterry> ev, though then the page doesn't "follow the link" of the dup and use appropriate strikethrough or highlighting
[16:52:05] <ev> mpt: ^ remind me, did you have any thoughts on what the interface should look like for linking to an existing bug
[16:52:30] <ev> just "[create ] [ link ]" maybe?
[16:53:00] <mpt> ev, not really, except that it should look more different to a bug number than it does now :-)
[16:53:09] <mpt> (a chain icon? A "+" symbol?)
[16:53:37] <mpt> (or maybe both, one for Create and the other for Link)
[16:53:45] <ev> okay
| Changed in errors: | |
| importance: | Undecided → Medium |
| status: | New → Confirmed |
| Alistair Buxton (a-j-buxton) wrote | #1 |
This is something important to me, but I think I'm coming at it from the other side. Say I find a crash bug that I can reproduce at will (eg #1076830) - I can report it and give the steps to reproduce, but every time I reproduce it the dump goes off to daisy never to be seen again. It isn't clear to me how I'd find it and link it to my bug report, if that is even possible.