> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: maandag 9 november 2009 16:10
> To: dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: [RFC] which bug tracker to use?
> Hi all,
> Now that we're in the Incubator and on our way to becoming an Apache
> project, one of the items that we need to select is which bug tracker
> to use.
> I'll preface this with: the ASF does not *mandate* that we use its
> facilities for bug tracking. It only wants source control and the
> original distribution point to be on ASF hardware. I'm not necessarily
> advocating that we keep a separate tracker (user confusion), but it is
> possible. Weigh the pros/cons in your mind.
I leave this to others to decide.
> The ASF provides two bug trackers:
> 1) Jira at http://issues.apache.org/jira/
+0 .. It is a commercial product, but I heard a lot of good things about it.
> 2) Bugzilla at http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/
-0. A long time ago I didn't like bugzilla. And I have something against big
perl projects. Bugzilla survived a long time though.
> For completeness:
> 3) Stick to Issuezilla on tigris.org
I don't think we should keep this on tigris, but it could stay there for a
bit longer if the other option would be to convert twice.
> 4) Use the issue tracker on Google Code in <some> appropriate project.
> [this is my favorite tracker!]
+0. I like the simpilicity, but I don't think using google code for just the
issuetracker is what we want.
> 5) Set up our own tracker on ASF hardware (eg. Trac). [I do not
> recommend this; our project would have to maintain it; ASF Infra only
> maintains Jira/Bugzilla]
I like Traq, but I think we should leave the management to another team, so
this would be a -0 too.
So, no real vote from me on this RFC.
Received on 2009-11-10 15:36:22 CET