Hi everyone, I want to know what's the end of this? It seemed to me that everyone thinks a good idea (or at least did not oppose) start using the bug tracker. The main point of discussion seems to be whether move or not to savannah (since we already have on in SF that is not being used).
1 month and a half seems to me like enough time for everyone to give an opinion. I'll just try to sum everyone's opinions here to make it easier to get a fast feeling of the devs opinion without losing much time reading everything. Please don't take it bad if I don't write exactly your opinion, I'm just trying to make a pool of what was said to speed any decision. Anyone can go back and read exactly what was said. To the question whether or not is possible to reassing bugs from one project to another (the main reason why move to savannah), it seems that yes, it is possible: One question was made: On 7 August 2011 16:10, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 August 2011 05:41, Søren Hauberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> Has it been determined if it is easy to move bugs between >> Savannah trackers? > > Yes, it is. I'm not sure what sort of access level is necessary, but > you can move bugs around. I see a "reassign this item" thing at the > bottom of bug reports that lets me type in any projected hosted in > Savannah to move things around. Also, moving to savannah does not imply changing revision system. Savannah supports GNU Arch, GNU Bazaar, CVS, Git, Mercurial and Subversion ( http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/WhyChooseSavannah ). Søren: In favour to move to savannah only because it would create a single entry point for bugs which is nice for users. If it's just to simply start using a bug tracker, the one in SF is enough. Agrees with JWE that octave-forge developers should not have access to mess with octave bugs. John W. Eaton: Against moving to savannah if that means that the current large number of octave-forge developers get access to control octave bug database since that means they also have complete write-access to octave repository. Jordi: in favout to move since it helps bring close the two projects and thinks it's not that much work since it's mainly reuploading the code and changing some links on the web pages. Each octave-forge package should have its own repository. Carlo defalco: Does not oppose moving to savannah but thinks that octave and octave-forge are two very different projects that should not be too close. Says that moving to savannah will be more work than it looks like since webpages are generated automatically (which will have to be updated) and the procedure to upload new package versions is also dependent on SF features. If the move of repository and bug tracker is moved to savannah, everything should be moved there. It would be nice to have a way to distribute packages that are not developed in octave-forge. If moved, there should be a single repository for all packages, no need to change that. If the only reason to move is because of a bug tracker, we should use the one in SF. Thomas Weber: Showed that most of the devs contributing to octave are not contributing to octave-forge and vice-versa and as such they should be kept well separated. If there's not enough octave-forge devs wanting to move, then there should be no move. Also, moving to another revision system is not worth the effort. If the move does occur, it should be complete and not have web hosting in SF and the rest in savannah. Moving to another host and have another revision system will not increase the number of contributors. Philip Nienhuis: Merging octave and octave-forge general help mailing list should be done. Does not think necessary to have a bug tracker where is easy to move things between octave and octave-forge but won't resist to it. If combined, the distinction should be clear. thinks we should keep svn as the revision system. Olaf Till: Welcomes move of octave-forge to savannah (and the name cganhe of octave-forge to something such as octave packages). Maling lists of two projects (at least dev mailing list) should be kept separated. The two projects should be kept well separated. Finnaly, my opinion is that moving to savannah would be nice. The two projects should not be merged and their bug trackers would be separated (while allowing to reassing them to the other which is posible according to Jordi). Inside the octave-forge project in savannah, each package would have its own category (not be a separated project). While I'm starting to prefer other revision system over svn, I think we should keep svn since it's easier for new devs (make it simple for new contributors) and everyone is already used to it. One svn repository for all packages is enough (one can checkout a single directory if so desired anyway). If we do stay in sourceforge, then we should at least start using its bug tracker (which some users do use to report bugs but no one checks. There must be a way to have a mail be sent to octave-forge ML when anything changes on the bug tracker). Carnë ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
