Comment 3 for bug 451301

Knowing the reporter seems mainly useful for QA people, as an informal guide to how reliable the report is likely to be (and how responsive the reporter will be to requests for further information); and for the reporter themselves, when trying to find a bug they reported. But sometimes I get confused and remember reporting a bug, when what actually happened was that I was going to report it but found someone else had reported already -- especially if I then updated the description. So I would be much more interested in a list of bug reports I've either created or resummarized, than in a list of bug reports I've either created or added a project/package to! And I expect that is true for other QA volunteers. Some of them will have added projects/packages to hundreds of bug reports (linking Ubuntu bug reports to their bugzilla.gnome.org equivalents, for example), but that doesn't mean they want them intermingled with the bugs they actually reported.

There seems to be a lack of a use case here -- you were inspired by bug 449785, but this wouldn't solve any of the problems that came up in that bug report (which are a nasty combination of bug 1357 and bug 5977). Did Colin Watson actually wonder why bug 430333 didn't show up in his +reportedbugs? Has anyone else?