>> * Monitor mailing lists to verify that patches are being dealt with. > >Doesn't sf have a tracker for patches? > >> * Monitor mailing lists and bug tracker to verify that bug reports are >> being dealt with. > >Doesn't sf have a tracker for bugs?
Yes, to both but we aren't using them fully and/or properly.
Exactly.
Also, people post patches and bug reports direct to the mailing lists.
That's probably wrong. They should use a tracker first and then discuss them on the mailing lists.
I disagree. I think that we should try to focus information instead of spreading them around. If we use the CVS-tree for the code, the mailing list(s) for discussion and regression tests (in CVS) to track bugs, this should be enought. The regression tests are IMHO superior to bug-trackers as they provide a much better feedback and are easier to maintain. Bug-trackers are just administrative overhead in my eyes, YMMV.
Let's make a small survey on what part we should keep and what might be obsoleted for the future. AFAIK the items to note are:
Mandatory and IMHO not controversal:
- CVS - Mailing list(s) - Website - Releases on SF
Other sources:
- Wiki - Yahoogroup's files-section - SF *-tracker
Personally, I'd like to get rid of the latter two. The reason against the files-section is, that it was very useful in the beginning, but as we have a main- and a sandbox-CVS and we can use branches on them, there shouldn't be any need for a files-section any longer. This is also backuped by the fact that the files-section isn't used as frequently as in the beginning (AFAICS).
The trackers are IMHO a problem because they require a lot of work. The current state shows that it is not maintained well, e.g. there are open bugs which are long closed in CVS, see #451535. Sure we could do better in theory, but is it worth it? Why not use regression tests to track bugs? AFAICS people pay a lot of attention to the regression tests and the whole systems work pretty well.
Also, I hope that it could make the release manager's work easier to have fewer sources to track :)
OK, what do others think? Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with the SF-trackers?
we need to do a certain amount of management to ensure release quality.
I would like to remind you of "KISS". Too much managment can also decrease quality as it might rule out some people. And I don't think that we really have a problem in tracking bugs. For features, it's up to the maintainers to handle this, but it's IMHO better to discuss this on the list and probably extend the libraries FAQ- or futute-section. No new system required :)
Regards, Daniel
-- Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
