On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Peter Karman <pe...@peknet.com> wrote: > Because Lucy is distributed through CPAN, we often get RT tickets opened[0]. > > That means we have 2 competing ticketing systems, our official Apache JIRA > system being the other. > > When we eventually distribute through other host-language-specific systems > like > CPAN, the issue will get worse. > > What's the preferred way of dealing with this kind of situation?
Thanks for dealing with the bug report and supplied patch today, Peter. There are multiple reasons why we should encourage people to use Lucy's ASF JIRA issue tracker. For non-trivial patches, it is important that we capture both the contribution itself and the intent of the contributor within Apache-controlled channels -- they can mail a patch to one of our lists, or they can attach it to an issue in our ASF-run tracker, either is fine. This way we do not have our provenance history compromised when an external service loses data. Then there are the more obvious problems with maintaining multiple issue trackers, such as the overhead of watching them all. Hopefully Grant McLean's latest patch will change the issue tracker links on search.cpan.org and friends with the next Lucy release. That should help. But we are still certain get the occasional patch via an odd channel every once in a while. For simple bugs, with no patch or with a trivial patch, my feeling is that it makes sense to fix the code, close the issue, and politely suggest that they look over the CONTRIBUTING document at the root of our source tree in case there's a next time. For stuff that's more involved, we'll need to shunt the discussion into our own channels, either the mailing list or the tracker. Does that make sense? Marvin Humphrey
