On 12/22/2017 11:26 AM, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote: > On 22/12/17 17:36, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> The important part is the data itself. >> ... >> IMHO if anything is going to happen with this it's going to come >> from someone who just gets on and does it. Maybe someone who just >> throws a spreadsheet or something together to keep track of >> tech@/bugs@ mails. I'd be very surprised if a useful system >> comes from someone who is looking at it as a technical exercise >> of setting up the system. > > > I agree with you that the important is the data itself and not the system > chosen for the work. > > Such a movement can start from zero ground without migrating data from @bugs > or @tech. > > But to be fair with the OP it all depends on dev's (mainly) willingness to > track/respond/close tickets. > I say devs because these are the people who commit fixes of bugs and so they > should monitor/update this system as well. It's extra work for them instead > of developing... and I understand that. > > I don't see a reason @tech should be forwarded to this ticket system. > > @bugs can be eventually closed or somehow migrated to this system (new mails > and not existing ones). > > Personally I would like to see such a system in OB.
> so they should monitor/update this system as well Therein is the issue, in my eyes. "should" instead of "want to." The system needs to provide enough of a benefit to those who use it that they want to use. No amount of shiny objects is going to change that.
