| 1 |
On 02/07/2012 10:35 PM, My Th wrote: |
| 2 |
> O , 2012-02-07 13:13 -0800, Sébastien Fabbro rakstīja: |
| 3 |
>> 2. bugzilla + tag [science overlay] is a hack prone to human mistake |
| 4 |
>> that gives unnecessary work to bugs scanners, whereas a unified |
| 5 |
>> scm+issue system going straight to the dev |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I don't see this as much of a problem. I prefer it as it is now when all |
| 8 |
> bug reports for certain package are in the same tracker instead of two |
| 9 |
> separate ones, depending on whether the particular ebuild has been |
| 10 |
> migrated to the main tree or not. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There are few disadvantages of having overlay bugs on b.g.o: |
| 13 |
1) bugs get lost in the noise, currently there are ~600 |
| 14 |
maintainer-wanted bugs, some of them may be interesting from our POV |
| 15 |
2) people that are assigned to bugs are rarely people responsible for |
| 16 |
given package, in most cases those bugs are just assigned to sci@g.o. |
| 17 |
There several reasons to that, one e.g. contributor to sci overlay does |
| 18 |
not have b.g.o account. |
| 19 |
3) bugs can be changed/resolved only by devs or reporter, unless you |
| 20 |
have edit privs |
| 21 |
Having more open tracker, would relieve us from much work while allowing |
| 22 |
contributors to take more control. |
| 23 |
Cheers, |
| 24 |
Kacper |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
>> 3. wiki.g.o is up but not unified to a specific project, I have not |
| 27 |
>> seen a single sci contribution yet |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> They even have dedicated section for Projects&Community, just add there |
| 30 |
> an entry for sci. There is not a single sci contribution only because |
| 31 |
> nobody has cared to write one. That wiki is good and it is the place I |
| 32 |
> would expect to find sci project's wiki if I would search for it. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Reinis |
Archives