Comment 4 for bug 61909
Revision history for this message
| Matt Zimmerman (mdz) wrote Re: [Bug 61909] Re: Security subscription should be implicit | #4 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:48:50PM -0000, Christian Reis wrote:
> How would this work? Currently, if the bug is private, then the
> subscribers are always explicit. Are you suggesting to change that rule
> to be: if the bug is private but it is security-related then implicitly
> subscribe (and give access to) the related security contact?
Given that security is the primary use case for private bugs, this exception
seems worthy of consideration.
I've subscribed the security team to get their input. Maybe this isn't as
much of an issue as it once was, or there's a better way to address it.
--
- mdz