Hi Daniel, you wrote:
[snip] > > 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. That's exactly what a tracker is good for IMHO. > 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. Regression tests and tracker do not contradict. > Bug-trackers are just administrative overhead in my eyes, YMMV. Maybe that's a question of the project's size. And boost is still growing. > 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 Agreed. > Other sources: > > - Wiki Inofficial. > - 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. Unsure: one first needs CVS access then. > 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. That could be, yes. > 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 :) In my opinion it should be easier for the release manager to look into the tracker than to follow *all* mailing list traffic. > OK, what do others think? Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with > the SF-trackers? Yep, I'm curious, too. > >>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. Then we'd be the first probably ;-) > 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 :) Maybe features are another story. Best, Joerg _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
