[visit-developers] GForge bug tracking

tom fogal tfogal at alumni.unh.edu
Tue May 5 14:05:03 EDT 2009

Mark Miller <miller86 at llnl.gov> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 11:37 -0600, tom fogal wrote:
> > Mark Miller <miller86 at llnl.gov> writes:
> Many of the remaining responses took the form of 'we may not have enough
> control to affect that'. As an aside, and this is directed at the state
> of web-collaborative tools such as svn/GForge/etc, I think it is a shame
> that when we move towards infrastructure that will enable wider
> participation, we invariably wind up having to to give up important
> features.

I'm not sure this is generally true.

I haven't used ClearQuest before, but I would be surprised if you
considered say, launchpad, to be a huge step down.  That type of
system does an amazingly good job of organizing distributed software
development.  Actually, I'd be floored if ClearQuest did as good a job
at such a task.

Even just compared to bugzilla or manta or whatnot though, I'd say
GForge's tracker is ages behind other systems.  I'd say that about
subversion too though, and people seem to like that ;P

> Also, I happened notice that we have 3 trackers; tech support,
> Feature Requests, Bugs. What is the rationale for having different
> trackers? If we keep Bug and Feature Request trackers separate,
> then I think we need NOT have 'enhancement' as a 'flag' on a Bug
> submission.

I certainly don't see the case for having 3 trackers *and* the flag in
our `Bug' db.

Those are trackers are removable, IIRC.  Which would we prefer
(deleting trackers or the flag)?


More information about the visit-developers mailing list