On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm not trolling in any way. I'm just challenging you to back up your > > blanket assertions with evidence. For example, you're assertion that > > mailing lists are insufficient is simply stated and expected to be > > taken on faith: *How* is it insufficient and *what* do things like in > > the new world? Be specific: glossing over these details doesn't > > really accomplish anything and avoids the careful examination that may > > suggest small tweaks to the current processes that could get similar > > results with a lot less effort. In this entire massive thread, so far > > only Josh has come up with what I'd consider to be actionable problem > > cases. > > I think that the mailing list is pretty much just as good as a bug > tracker would be for finding the discussion about some particular bug. > I mean, our web site has all the mails from the email thread, and > that's where the discussion is, and if that discussion were in a bug > tracker it wouldn't have any more information than what is on the > email thread. The email thread also usually contains a message > indicating whether a fix was committed. > > Where the mailing list is less adequate is: > > - If you want to see a list of all the bugs by status, you have to > review every thread individually. It would be useful to have a way to > filter out the bug reports that turn out not to be really bugs vs. the > ones that are real bugs which have been fixed vs. the ones that are > real bugs that have not been fixed. Associating status with each bug > number would make this easier. > I think that's a pretty good summary. A bug tracker can be used to add metadata about a bug, which can be very useful. Such as which versions are affected, and when it was fixed (or if it wasn't), which platforms it breaks, etc. But using the bugtracker for the discussion itself is usually not a win. In fact, I'd say in most cases it's counterproductive because it forces a single tool upon everybody, instead of email which allows each person to pick their own favourite tool. Using a bugtracker where all discussion happens in email removes that downside, and moves it back to the state where it doesn't help but also doesn't hinder the communication. > > - Bug numbers are sometimes preserved in commit messages, but they > never make it into release notes. This actually seems like something > we could improve pretty easily and without a lot of extra work (and > also without a bug tracker). If every committer makes a practice of > putting the bug number into the commit message, and the people who > write the release notes then transcribe the information there, I bet > that would be pretty useful to a whole lotta people. > That would require people to actually use the bug form to submit the initial thread as well of course - which most developers don't do themselves today. But there is in itself nothing that prevents them from doing that, of course - other than a Small Amount Of Extra Work. I think when a patch is directly related to a specific bug as reported through the webform, don't most committers already refer to that bug number? Maybe not every time, but at least most of the time? It's the many discussions that don't actually have a bug number and yet result in a patch that don't? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
