summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn')
-rw-r--r--open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn78
1 files changed, 78 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn b/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn
index 55c7b87b..72bb3b77 100644
--- a/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn
+++ b/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn
@@ -102,6 +102,84 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-31:
<mattl> RT is not the easiest thing to set up, but works pretty well once
it's running.
+IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-10-19:
+
+ <antrik> tschwinge: BTW, what happened to the plan of killing help-hurd?
+ <antrik> (and possibly some other lists)
+ <tschwinge> antrik: That plan got stalled, obviously. ;-)
+ <tschwinge> antrik: Now, I had proposed to use hurd-dev for development,
+ and turn bug-hurd into a debbugs bug reportling list. That proposal has
+ not heard any supportive/unsupportive votes yet.
+ <tschwinge> hurd-devel. That's the name.
+ <tschwinge> And turn off hurd-devel-readers. And turn off help-hurd.
+ <tschwinge> And web-hurd.
+ <tschwinge> Keep l4-hurd.
+ <antrik> yeah, I haven't replied regarding bug-hurd vs. hurd-devel, as I'm
+ not quite sure myself
+ <antrik> on one hand, a dedicated bug list can be convenient; on the other
+ hand, this kind of splits always causes unnecessary overhead IMHO
+ <antrik> also, hurd-devel would obviously be *only* for development, so in
+ this scenario we actually would *need* to keep something like help-hurd
+ as well...
+ <antrik> I think I'd prefer the non-exclusive mode for debbugs... would
+ have to check again how it works exactly though :-)
+ <tschwinge> antrik: I quite liked that exclusive mode for it automatically
+ archives discussions grouped by threads for easy reference.
+ <tschwinge> antrik: And, the very most of bug-hurd emails are ``issues'' of
+ some sort: bug report, patch (that needs to be tracked until it is
+ applied, etc.
+ <antrik> tschwinge: exclusive mode would just mean that people would take
+ most of these discussion elsewhere, and the bug list would only be used
+ when someone explicitly wants something tracked as a bug...
+ <antrik> ideally, the bug tracker should only track things if explicitly
+ CCed. ideally, it should be possible to forward mails that have been
+ posted without CC, so they can be tracked retroactively...
+ <tschwinge> antrik: Why do you think that people would take discussions
+ elsewhere?
+ <antrik> because most people don't consider it useful to put every random
+ question or remark in an issue tracker
+ <antrik> IMHO it should be easy to turn messages into tickets/followups;
+ but it should not happen automatically
+ <tschwinge> What if people wouldn't even notice that their issues is kept
+ in a tracker, too?
+ <draculus> It might send a notification of some sort?
+ <antrik> I once posted to a list with RT in exclusive mode, and quite
+ frankly, I considered it rather strange to get a ticket created for my
+ message :-)
+ <antrik> tschwinge: that would only be useful if you always close tickets
+ for irrelevant or finished discussions, mark duplicates etc. -- and this
+ would have to happen silently, without noise for most other people
+ following the list...
+ <antrik> tschwinge: are you sure you want to do that?... :-)
+ <tschwinge> Yes.
+ <tschwinge> Because that way we don't lose so much stuff as we currently
+ do.
+ <antrik> well, the decision is up to you in that case...
+ <tschwinge> In fact, probably less than manually archiving the content, as
+ I'm doing now, partially.
+ <tschwinge> antrik: Well, I'm just out for getting some comments.
+ <antrik> it would further reduce our bus factor though :-(
+ <tschwinge> That already is low enough that it doesn't matter anymore...
+ <tschwinge> antrik: So, to sum up, you'd use non-exclusive mode, but are
+ not actively opposed to exclusive mode as long as it doesn't too much
+ disturbe any procedures you're currently using?
+ <antrik> well, if it happens mostly in the background, I don't see why
+ anyone should be opposed...
+ <antrik> just make sure people posting to the list don't get a "ticket
+ created" message in response :-)
+ <antrik> it would make it harder though for people to explicitly track
+ issue they are interested in I fear
+ <antrik> when using non-exclusive mode, and people explicitly CC things to
+ the tracker, which sends a notice about a ticket being created, everyone
+ sees that and can act accordingly. if everything happens in the
+ background, few people would even think about it...
+ <antrik> so non-exclusive mode probably needs more effort to keep in order;
+ but it would be more useful too...
+ <tschwinge> Well, but with exclusive mode, people don't lose anything
+ compared to the current state, do they?
+ <antrik> tschwinge: probably not compared to the current state... but
+ possibly compared to a well-used non-exclusive mode :-)
+
# Further Systems