From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Romain Lenglet <rlenglet@domain.hid>
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Bug tracker.
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:08:21 +0900
References: <17229.31343.98877.781567@domain.hid>
	<434DEDDD.4020607@domain.hid>
In-Reply-To: <434DEDDD.4020607@domain.hid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200510131508.22053.rlenglet@domain.hid>
List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches,
	discussions\)" <xenomai.xenomai.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Archive: </public/xenomai-core>
List-Post: <mailto:xenomai@xenomai.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
To: xenomai@xenomai.org

> I'm not stronly opposing, but in my opinion it causes
> information to scatter in contrast to the ml. There'll be bug
> reports on the ml regardless of having or not having a bug
> tracking system in function. It's more difficult to
> follow/search two places than one. And this project isn't the
> size of openoffice or debian, so maybe the ml doesn't get
> cluttered by incoming bug reports. And finally, many bug
> reports already contain a reasonable fix and their tracking
> summarizes to "Applied." There are benefits, too, of course,
> like forcing a good format for a report.

One point in favor of the use of a tracker like that of Gforge or 
GNA, is that it assigns a unique number to every bug / wish, 
which could then be easily referenced in Changelogs, CVS/SVN 
commits, etc.

It is easier to track bugs and have an history (when that bug has 
been reported? when has it been fixed? etc. which is not always 
clear from a ML).

I see it as complementary to the ML.


(my 2-yen contribution)

-- 
Romain Lenglet