Martin v. Löwis wrote: > It's significantly different from the Bitkeeper fiasco in two > important > ways: > 1. Bitkeeper is a source revisioning system, so it is similar to CVS > and Subversion. This project here is "just" the bug tracker, which > is of lesser importance. If we move to a different one some day, a > certain amount of data lossage might be acceptable (e.g. we now > likely lose the "history" of status changes and file attachments on > each report). An export of all data is high on the requirements > list, as Fredrik points out.
I understand your point. OTOH, exactly because the tracker system is a far lesser importance, it's amazing there is *ever* a need to evaluate non-FLOSS solutions, when there are so many good free solutions around. Instead of recommending a closed source solution, you could have recommended Roundup *and* explained there is a need for funding and/or volunteers before the migration can happen. You might also be understimating how negative could be the reaction from the open-source community to such a move. -- Giovanni Bajo
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list