Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
So for now I will upgrade bugzilla to the latest version. -p On 1/8/10 3:46 PM, Platonides wrote: David Gerard wrote: 2010/1/7 Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:58 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: I understand they run OpenSolaris, which is free software. Well, either you're right or River is: River probably is then :-) However, I understood the ZFS bug manifested itself on OpenSolaris on the image server ... - d. http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Ms4 to Ms8 begin with MsX is a Sun Fire X4540 running Solaris 10. Similar for Ms1 This box is running Solaris 10 with zfs.. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Priyanka Dhanda Code Maintenance Engineer WikiMedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Roan Kattouw wrote: 2010/1/7 Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org: Hmmm... Not being able to distinguish the difference between a bug tracker and a wiki based on the skins being similar is a point of view I have a hard time understanding. Having read quite a few bug reports written in wikitext (which mostly doesn't work in Bugzilla, except for [[links]]), I would encourage a clearer distinction between the wikis and the bug tracker. I don't want to give people the impression that what they're reporting bugs on is really a quirky wiki variant: the bug tracker not only uses different syntax, but also has different policies, procedures and protocols. It occurs to me that one option would be going the other way: the CodeReview extension already seems to have about 50% of the features a basic but functional bug tracker would need, including a couple of nice ones that our Bugzilla currently lacks (like, you know, comment preview, ability to use wiki markup and, well, code review). Yes, turning it into a full-featured issue tracker and project management tool would take some substantial work, but then, switching to a new project management tool and customizing it to fit our needs isn't quite a 15 minute job either. Just something to consider... :-) -- Ilmari Karonen ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: .. Wouldn't be nice. First, it's an attitude thing: we want (and have to) promote open stuff. Second, it isn't nice to show something to the users they cannot use themselves. It's kind of against or basic principle of you can do what we do, you're free to do it, we just do it better :-) It will be a good idea to pass the memo to the guys that design the notability rules. http://ioquake3.org/2009/02/20/ioquake3-entry-deleted-from-wikipedia/ Since most (all?) opensource proyects are webonly, and don't get in the press, are on some obscure area of the web where something can be wildly popular for these in-the-know, and invisible for these that edit and delete articles. I mean, I can write a bot to nominate *all* opensource projects articles on wikipedia for speedy deletion, and few ones (maybe 6) will survive that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ioquake3 Keep no matter how loud people and guidlines scream for reliable sources, many, many people use it and work on it and that makes it notable. If the press is not able to reliably represent this reality it's not a fault of the project and reality is a higher standard than reliable press. What do you need press for an Open Source project? Just looking at the SVN log proves more than any article could ever do. -- ioquake3 maintainer for the FreeBSD project -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On 08.01.2010, 22:42 Tei wrote:
It will be a good idea to pass the memo to the guys that design the
notability rules.
http://ioquake3.org/2009/02/20/ioquake3-entry-deleted-from-wikipedia/
Since most (all?) opensource proyects are webonly, and don't get in
the press, are on some obscure area of the web where something can
be wildly popular for these in-the-know, and invisible for these that
edit and delete articles.
I mean, I can write a bot to nominate *all* opensource projects
articles on wikipedia for speedy deletion, and few ones (maybe 6) will
survive that.
offtopic severity=Will not engage in further flamewar on-list
FFS, how can one maintain an article without reliable sources? What
such an article will look like? Enough article-count-stacking,
emphasis on quality, even if that means systemic bias. Wikipedia is not
a registry of open-source projects. And those projects that an average
user might search for tend to have some sources, guess why?
As of counter examples of fancruft, there's one 100% recipe: remove
all in-universe crap and slap {{db-empty}} if there's nothing left.
/offtopic
--
Best regards,
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: .. Wouldn't be nice. First, it's an attitude thing: we want (and have to) promote open stuff. Second, it isn't nice to show something to the users they cannot use themselves. It's kind of against or basic principle of you can do what we do, you're free to do it, we just do it better :-) It will be a good idea to pass the memo to the guys that design the notability rules. Right. Notability guidelines do not apply to the Wikimedia Servers, MediaWiki software or on which kind of bug tracker we are going to use, so please take complaining about that somewhere else. Bryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote: It will be a good idea to pass the memo to the guys that design the notability rules. http://ioquake3.org/2009/02/20/ioquake3-entry-deleted-from-wikipedia/ Notability is decided by each wiki individually. The policies of the English Wikipedia are irrelevant to this list, which is about Wikimedia server administration and MediaWiki development. The correct list for this sort of comment would be wikien-l, or possibly foundation-l. Devs/sysadmins can't override wiki policies on things like notability, so there's no point in telling wikitech-l. Thanks. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Tei wrote: It will be a good idea to pass the memo to the guys that design the notability rules. http://ioquake3.org/2009/02/20/ioquake3-entry-deleted-from-wikipedia/ Since most (all?) opensource proyects are webonly, and don't get in the press, are on some obscure area of the web where something can be wildly popular for these in-the-know, and invisible for these that edit and delete articles. I mean, I can write a bot to nominate *all* opensource projects articles on wikipedia for speedy deletion, and few ones (maybe 6) will survive that. *Many* opensource projects are relevant, to cite a few: Apache, PHP, Python, Perl, Ruby, Postgresql, subversion, mercurial, git, bazaar... Those are more than 6... :) They are technologies widely known, there are books written about them... As opposed, this is the first time I hear about ioquake3. It may be relevant, it may be not. Being in the web and free is not enough for warranting notability. Even though script kiddies making its Linux ditro don't like it :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ioquake3 Keep no matter how loud people and guidlines scream for reliable sources, many, many people use it and work on it and that makes it notable. If the press is not able to reliably represent this reality it's not a fault of the project and reality is a higher standard than reliable press. What do you need press for an Open Source project? Just looking at the SVN log proves more than any article could ever do. -- ioquake3 maintainer for the FreeBSD project If they are relevant, why bother if wikipedia doesn't acknowledge that? Suppose wikipedia didn't have an article about FreeBSD, would that make it a worse OS? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com: The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. By that standard, even a freebie is not good enough if the system is closed source. However, my recollection is based on discussions years ago. On searching, I couldn't find any policy forbidding closed source software (is there one?). So, it is possible that closed source might be looked on as a more acceptable possibility for some functions now (though I wouldn't bet on it). The reasoning is that having the data be free content is not enough - the systems you need to use the data need to be free software as well. Lucene is free software, but was out for a while as Java wasn't free software then. I believe we used a rewritten version in C# for a while, in fact. A Java version of Lucene started being used again when Java was in the process of being freed up, I think we were using it before there was an entirely free software Java. (corrections welcomed!) - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The reasoning is that having the data be free content is not enough - the systems you need to use the data need to be free software as well. Strictly speaking though, the bug tracking software for Mediawiki isn't actually part of the chain of systems responsible for running Wikipedia. As far as I know no one has ever tried to duplicate Mediawiki's bugzilla or even wanted to. So, if one was going to make an exception, then this seems like an area that could be considered, but I don't know of any really strong arguments for why closed source would be necessary in this case. -Robert Rohde ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. Bryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com wrote: I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. I think atlassian is happy to provide Jira as well as other tools for WMF, just like they do for other opensource projects. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Bryan Tong Minh wrote: I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. Bryan Is it that hard? The basic features (add comments, dependencies, email notifications...) are quite straightforward. A bugzilla extension would fix the skin issues and the not-really wikisyntax comments. It means recreating everything from the ground up, though. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: That is apparently fixed in the newer versions, where you can set it up to hide the more advanced stuff on forms and stuff unless people want to use it and have forms that can only be touched if another one is. We do have a running testbed for the new version somewhere on the WMF servers, its address is in one of the bug reports requesting the upgrade. New version of what? Bugzilla? I assume Mozilla's is roughly the latest version. That one is definitely better than ours, but still pretty confusing to normal people, compared to something like Launchpad or Google Issues. On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Mike.lifeguard mike.lifegu...@gmail.com wrote: Launchpad is (I think) still undergoing lots of changes. It may be opensourced now, but I'm not sure it is ready. I actually have UI complaints... since this request is at least in part coming from folks on the usability team, I wonder what they think of Launchpad. Maybe I'm hallucinating usability issues. Well, workflow is just a lot smoother for common things. So for instance, to subscribe, just click Subscribe and it works immediately via AJAX. On Bugzilla you have to type in your e-mail address in the CC field, or scroll all the way to the bottom and check the box and hit Submit and hope you didn't change anything else by mistake at the same time, and hope that no one else changed anything at the same time so you avoid a mid-air collision. Mark as duplicate is similarly simple. And it's just organized more intuitively. Compare: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/18305 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235115 On Bugzilla you have to scroll through more than a page of mysterious fields (at my resolution) before you ever get to the actual bug description. Launchpad has most things neatly tucked away at the side. People are identified by names instead of e-mails. Status changes are noted inline in the comment that accompanies them instead of being hidden in a separate activity history. It's just . . . way better. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. By that standard, even a freebie is not good enough if the system is closed source. Obviously this is not the current position, because the image servers run Solaris. The position was always to use open-source software *unless* no OSS met Wikimedia's needs. This was (is) the case for routers. It was also the case for Java before it was open-source, AFAIK just because Robert was more comfortable with Java Lucene than CLucene and you have to take volunteers where you can get them. Although the switch to Solaris wasn't discussed anywhere in public as far as I know, my impression is that it happened after we lost a whole bunch of images due to programming error, for the sake of being able to use ZFS snapshots. I'm also not sure who would enforce such a policy with Brion no longer CTO. I note Priyanka's initial requirements just said Free, and ^demon changed that to Free (Beer and Speech). Personally, I would like to see Wikimedia stick to all OSS. Wikimedia's goal is to advance free knowledge, and supporting free software advances that goal, at least construed in a broad sense. Every high-profile user to any given open-source project helps that project and thereby OSS as a whole. But I'm not making the decisions here. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Hi, this is slightly off-topic, but I'll go ahead anyway: Please don't make bugzilla (or any future bug tracker) look like MediaWiki (Monobook skin). What looks like a Wiki (but aren't) often gets confused with a Wiki. Buzgilla is not a Wiki. It's a bug tracker. I know it's nice to have a familiar design on different pages, but this is just confusing for newbies. A distinguishable design prevents confusions. Regards, Church of emacs signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. By that standard, even a freebie is not good enough if the system is closed source. Obviously this is not the current position, because the image servers run Solaris. I understand they run OpenSolaris, which is free software. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Hi, Mike.lifeguard a écrit : On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Priyanka Dhanda wrote: Guillaume and Naoko have expressed a need for a Project Management Tool What exactly does Project Management Tool encompass? See the project management section of http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tracker/PM_tool :) -- Guillaume Paumier ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On 1/7/10 10:55 AM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: Hi, this is slightly off-topic, but I'll go ahead anyway: Please don't make bugzilla (or any future bug tracker) look like MediaWiki (Monobook skin). What looks like a Wiki (but aren't) often gets confused with a Wiki. Buzgilla is not a Wiki. It's a bug tracker. I know it's nice to have a familiar design on different pages, but this is just confusing for newbies. A distinguishable design prevents confusions. Regards, Church of emacs ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l Hmmm... Not being able to distinguish the difference between a bug tracker and a wiki based on the skins being similar is a point of view I have a hard time understanding. Having a consistent style across our tool-chain would by most people's thinking be an improvement in the way that each tool is more connected feeling... Besides, we would be styling it with Vector not Monobook. Monobook is so last decade! - Trevor ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Ryan Chan ryanchan...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com wrote: I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. I think atlassian is happy to provide Jira as well as other tools for WMF, just like they do for other opensource projects. I would recommend reading the EULA as part of the evaluation process: http://www.atlassian.com/about/licensing/license.jsp In particular, see section 10, which may affect the ability to get an honest opinion about the capabilities of the software from people with experience. Rob ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:58 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I understand they run OpenSolaris, which is free software. Well, either you're right or River is: 081128 13:01:12 @yksinaisyyteni we don't use opensolaris, we use solaris 10 ... 081128 13:02:08 Simetrical Wikimedia is using Solaris 10 to host Wikipedia/Commons/etc. stuff? 081128 13:02:15 @yksinaisyyteni the image server (from #wikimedia-tech) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:58 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I understand they run OpenSolaris, which is free software. Well, either you're right or River is: River probably is then :-) However, I understood the ZFS bug manifested itself on OpenSolaris on the image server ... - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org: Hmmm... Not being able to distinguish the difference between a bug tracker and a wiki based on the skins being similar is a point of view I have a hard time understanding. Having read quite a few bug reports written in wikitext (which mostly doesn't work in Bugzilla, except for [[links]]), I would encourage a clearer distinction between the wikis and the bug tracker. I don't want to give people the impression that what they're reporting bugs on is really a quirky wiki variant: the bug tracker not only uses different syntax, but also has different policies, procedures and protocols. I like the Launchpad design, its use of less jargon-like language and how it lists status changes amid the comments and provides a full activity log on a separate page. Having a consistent style across our tool-chain would by most people's thinking be an improvement in the way that each tool is more connected feeling... That's a nice idea in principle, but as outlined above I'd like to keep the similarities limited. Our bug tracker should actively communicate it's Wikimedia's (name and logo in prominent places) but shouldn't feel /too/ familiar to people that are used to wikis. Besides, we would be styling it with Vector not Monobook. Monobook is so last decade! I do agree that if we restyle anything, we should at least improve its looks :) Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Hi everyone, I wanted to get some idea of what y'all think of our existent bug tracker. I know there are mixed feelings about Bugzilla and works well for a lot of things we do and maybe we need to use it more effectively/upgrade it and find tools that integrate with it better. But I'd like to know whether there is any kind of consensus for sticking with it or switching away from it and what you would like to have that Bugzilla is missing now (we are a few versions behind on bugzilla.wikimedia.org) Guillaume and Naoko have expressed a need for a Project Management Tool and I though it would be good to try use a tracker with some project management functionality or integrates easily with some project management tool. I've started a page for gathering feedback and suggestions http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/TrackerPMTool Once we have a few good candidates I'll try to get a some test instances going for people to play with. -p -- Priyanka Dhanda Code Maintenance Engineer WikiMedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Priyanka Dhanda pdha...@wikimedia.org wrote: I wanted to get some idea of what y'all think of our existent bug tracker. Bugzilla is obnoxious and hard to use, but people are familiar with it. From what I've seen of Trac, I'm not a big fan of that either (although I haven't used it much). My favorite issue tracker packages as a user are Launchpad and Google Issues. The latter isn't even distributed to third parties, let alone open-source. Launchpad, on the other hand, has been AGPL for several months now. It might not meet other requirements, but I like its UI a lot compared to most other packages I've used. (As a user, I mean, I've never administered any.) The only software I've personally used that does stuff like time tracking is JIRA. It's free as in beer for open-source projects, but closed-source, and personally I think it's even more confusing to use than Bugzilla. Like Bugzilla's cluttered and cryptic UI except with ten times as many features, so it's that much worse. Plus the gibberish options tend to be enterprise-speak instead of hacker-speak, so I have a harder time understanding them. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: Bugzilla is obnoxious and hard to use, but people are familiar with it. From what I've seen of Trac, I'm not a big fan of that either (although I haven't used it much). My favorite issue tracker packages as a user are Launchpad and Google Issues. The latter isn't even distributed to third parties, let alone open-source. Launchpad, on the other hand, has been AGPL for several months now. It might not meet other requirements, but I like its UI a lot compared to most other packages I've used. (As a user, I mean, I've never administered any.) The only software I've personally used that does stuff like time tracking is JIRA. It's free as in beer for open-source projects, but closed-source, and personally I think it's even more confusing to use than Bugzilla. Like Bugzilla's cluttered and cryptic UI except with ten times as many features, so it's that much worse. Plus the gibberish options tend to be enterprise-speak instead of hacker-speak, so I have a harder time understanding them. That is apparently fixed in the newer versions, where you can set it up to hide the more advanced stuff on forms and stuff unless people want to use it and have forms that can only be touched if another one is. We do have a running testbed for the new version somewhere on the WMF servers, its address is in one of the bug reports requesting the upgrade. -Peachey ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Priyanka Dhanda wrote: Guillaume and Naoko have expressed a need for a Project Management Tool What exactly does Project Management Tool encompass? On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: From what I've seen of Trac, I'm not a big fan of that either (although I haven't used it much). Trac is worse that bugzilla. Just say no. My favorite issue tracker packages as a user are Launchpad ... Launchpad, on the other hand, has been AGPL for several months now. It might not meet other requirements, but I like its UI a lot compared to most other packages I've used. (As a user, I mean, I've never administered any.) Launchpad is (I think) still undergoing lots of changes. It may be opensourced now, but I'm not sure it is ready. I actually have UI complaints... since this request is at least in part coming from folks on the usability team, I wonder what they think of Launchpad. Maybe I'm hallucinating usability issues. - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktFZ3AACgkQst0AR/DaKHs7IgCgh/lCQBD5mXidI1VfJt2LbVFI aM8AoJ7GBcuX+DAfGr09eXGBmbcdMrID =JhA6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Priyanka Dhanda pdha...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Guillaume and Naoko have expressed a need for a Project Management Tool and I though it would be good to try use a tracker with some project management functionality or integrates easily with some project management tool. Anyone tried FogBugz, Joel Spolsky's baby? I'm so curious... although it's commercial software, who knows, you might get a discount or even a freebie. Steve ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Priyanka Dhanda pdha...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Guillaume and Naoko have expressed a need for a Project Management Tool and I though it would be good to try use a tracker with some project management functionality or integrates easily with some project management tool. Anyone tried FogBugz, Joel Spolsky's baby? I'm so curious... although it's commercial software, who knows, you might get a discount or even a freebie. The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. By that standard, even a freebie is not good enough if the system is closed source. However, my recollection is based on discussions years ago. On searching, I couldn't find any policy forbidding closed source software (is there one?). So, it is possible that closed source might be looked on as a more acceptable possibility for some functions now (though I wouldn't bet on it). -Robert Rohde ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
