On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 10:25 +0100, Roland Weber wrote: > Hi Oleg, > > since I'm missing first-hand experience with JIRA, I searched > a little on the web. The direct comparisons seem to be rather > in favor of JIRA. > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.testing/browse_thread/thread/44fcaa771838eb5d/47a4b78f841d27a0?lnk=st&q=bugzilla+jira+-httpclient&rnum=9&hl=en#47a4b78f841d27a0 > http://marc2.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=112667428311853&w=2 > > I've also browsed through the xml-cocoon-dev list of last > September to November. Migrating a bugzilla database to JIRA > is quite some effort. But since you're not suggesting to > migrate HttpClient, except maybe the handful of bugs opened > for or assigned to 4.0, I guess we'd be fine with JIRA. The > distinction between HttpClient and HttpComponents should > be clear enough to not confuse users. > > cheers, > Roland >
Roland, I should have elaborated this a little more. Essentially we have three options: (1) Keep BZ as an issue tracking system for JHC and JCHC. Work with the infrastructure people to reorganize HttpClient project to fit our needs (rename HttpClient project to HttpComponents, rename HttpCommon to HttpCore, add missing modules and release milestones) (2) Wholesale move to JIRA. JCHC is just a another module in JHC project (3) Use BZ for JCHC. Use JIRA for JHC In my opinion the third option is the most problematic one. It is just a matter of time until some users will end up reporting JCHC bugs in Jira and JHC bugs in Bugzilla leaving us with a horrible mess on our hands. I am personally for the second option. Oleg > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
