| 1 |
Mikael Hallendal writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> As said before, this is the _default_ interface too bugzilla which |
| 4 |
> we have no intention of using (at least not for endusers). |
| 5 |
^^ |
| 6 |
Has there already been a decision to use Bugzilla? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Bugzilla is complex before it's _very_ powerful. But I agree, the |
| 9 |
> default interface is too complex [...] |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The problem is that web interfaces generally suck because of the poor |
| 12 |
GUI elements that HTML provides. For example, the text entry's |
| 13 |
editing features are really poor compared to the features of real text |
| 14 |
editors. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
How will users select a package in the Bug Tracking System if there |
| 17 |
are hundreds or even thousands of packages? Do they have to scroll |
| 18 |
through endless lists? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I prefer to write my reports with a text editor and to send the |
| 21 |
reports by electronic mail. It's much easier to add patches and |
| 22 |
ebuild scripts to electronic mail than to add them to reports sent |
| 23 |
through a web interface - at least if you're using Emacs to write your |
| 24 |
mail :] |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The Debian BTS uses electronic mail. And there are at least two |
| 27 |
programs, e.g. reportbug, which is written in Python, that end-users |
| 28 |
can use to send bug reports. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> This is very true while talking about endusers. When talking about |
| 31 |
> developers I think the most important thing is that it can handle |
| 32 |
> all the things we need to work effectivly. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Hm, do you think that all the developers need/want the same things? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
What's wrong with the Debian BTS? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Andreas |
Archives