[arch-general] distributed bugtracking?

[Dieter Plaetinck]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:01:43 -0500
C Anthony Risinger <anthony at extof.me> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Philipp Überbacher
> <hollunder at lavabit.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Dieter Plaetinck's message of 2010-09-08 21:47:40
> > +0200:
> >> anyone knows this? http://bugseverywhere.org/be/show/HomePage
> >>
> >> the concept looks great, although i don't know anything about the
> >> implementation/usage.
> >>
> >> other then the advantages they list, I think something like this
> >> can be useful for downstream<->upstream communication. (ie someone
> >> reports a bug in the distro bugseverywhere, they can then more
> >> easily forward the bugs to upstream when needed)
> >> i blogged about stuff like this @
> >> http://dieter.plaetinck.be/what_the_open_source_community_can_learn_from_devops
> >> if anyone cares.
> >>
> >> Dieter
> >
> > Hi Dieter,
> > just another distributed bug tracking system:
> > http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/tip/www/index.wiki
> >
> > It's also a DVCS and whatnot. What I wonder about is how it
> > compares to git when it comes to the DVCS part.
> 
> i don't anything too valuable to add, except that i too have written
> about this concept, notably here:
> 
> Distrib -e "Arch(org|code|pkgs|aur|forum|wiki|bugs|.*)?" -- thoughts
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=709188

some good ideas. i replied at your thread.

i think bugseverywhere is more interesting then the other solutions
because I think:
1) git > *, or at least git > fossil
2) tracking bugs as close as possible to the actual code (ie. along
with the branch) makes most sense.

I think the fundamentals are right and the current "deficiencies"
seem to come down to lack of some wrapper scripts and maybe a nice
(web)interface. At least that's what I gathered from
http://lwn.net/Articles/281849/, which is more then 2 years old.
They seem to have a basic web interace now, for instance.

Dieter