Comment 4 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.

I agree. That information is similarly useful on a per-task basis too,
no?

> 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.

I have the same problem :) It's interesting to imagine recording the
fact that I am a would-be reporter of a bug. I think +subscribedbugs
is a superset of this.

> 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.

That's fair. To me, those activities - create, resummarize, add target
- would be roughly as interesting as one another, but the QA workflow
is not my workflow.

> 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.

Certainly this kind of activity is not something I would do, and it's
now obvious why an "add target" action appearing as a "reported bug"
would be wrong for a QA person.

To me, adding a target to a bug primarily reveals the bug to a new
audience, especially by way of new subscribers (and even more so if
it's a private bug). It's the task reporter not the bug reporter who
has recommended/reported this bug to that audience.

> 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?

Ehrm, no, not to my knowledge :)

*I* expected it to show up in Colin's +reportedbugs, and I would want
bugs to which I had added a target to appear in my +reportedbugs. It
makes sense to me, and for me, because I don't regularly add targets
to bugs. I /guess/ it would make sense for Colin too. But I can see
that it wouldn't make sense for someone who primarily does QA.