[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Walter) writes: > 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.
Yes, agreed. One big problem though is that the SF trackers kinda suck. I'd be interested in trying something else, like http://roundup.sourceforge.net/ >> 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. Yes, agreed. >> Bug-trackers are just administrative overhead in my eyes, YMMV. Trying to keep track of everything in my head is a lot of mental overhead. > 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. Agreed; we need something else... though perhaps it's enough to ask people to post small things to the list and either get sandbox access or have their own ftp/http site to submit larger things. >> The trackers are IMHO a problem because they require a lot of work. > > That could be, yes. Yeah, but that might just be the SF trackers. We don't have to use them as-is. >> 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. Yeah. Also, you can't always get people who find bugs to make reproducible test cases in a form that integrates with the regression suite. >> OK, what do others think? Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with >> the SF-trackers? Nope; I dislike them also. That doesn't mean trackers in general are a bad idea. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost