[Python-Dev] Summary of Tracker Issues
brett at python.org
Sat May 19 01:15:28 CEST 2007
On 5/18/07, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote in message
> news:87lkfm8sds.fsf at uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp...
> | I think it would be better to do content. URLs come to mind; without
> | something clickable, most commercial spam would be hamstrung. But
> | few bug reports and patches need to contain URLs, except for
> | specialized local ones pointing to related issues.
> A bug is a disparity between promise and performance. Promise is often
> best demonstrated by a link to the relevant section of the docs. Doc
> patches should also contain a such a link. So doc references should be
> included with local (to tracker) links and not filtered on.
> | For example, how about requiring user interaction to display any post
> | containing an URL, until an admin approves it?
> Why not simply embargo any post with an off-site link? Tho there might
> have been some, I can't remember a single example of such at SF. Anybody
> posting such could certainly understand "Because this post contains an
> off-site link, it will be embargoed until reviewed to ensure that it is
> | Or you could provide a preview containing the first two non-empty lines
> | not containing an URL.
> | This *would* be inconvenient for large attachments and other
> | data where the reporter prefers to provide an URL rather than the
> | literal data, but OTOH only people who indicate they really want to
> | see spam would see it. ;-)
> I don't get this, but it sounds like more work than simple embargo.
> I think html attachments should also be embargoed (I believe this is what
> saw a couple of months ago.) And perhaps the account uploading an html
If you guys want to see any of this happen please take this discussion over
to the tracker-discuss mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev