On 8/24/15 1:57 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
What would it take to convince IA/OpenLibrary that a public bug tracker is a critical part of the open source development process?
Tom, IMO the issue isn't about bug tracking but staffing and costs. There is virtually no staff time dedicated to OL, so the question of being open source and tracking bugs is somewhat moot. Even an open source project needs to make use of some human time. With the project essentially de-funded, having a "crowd sourced" bug list means that the bug list will grow, but few bugs will be addressed. It took something like two years to get OL re-indexed, and that seems like a no-brainer.
As for it being open source, I'm not sure that is indeed the current thinking. Even if it were, it appears to me that the project lacks the tools needed to make code contributions possible (e.g. the test capabilities that I have mentioned before). Perhaps step one is to clarify whether the project is indeed intended to be open source (not just "source code lives in github"). That could help us manage expectations.
kc -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
