[csw-maintainers] moving along...

[rupert THURNER]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 04:40, Jesse Reynolds <jesse at opencsw.org> wrote:

>
>
> 2011/8/7 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>
>
>> 2011/8/6 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
>> > Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> Mantis is not written for
>> >> the number of projects that we have. It is meant to handle a two digit
>> >> number of projects, and we have a four digit one
>> >
>> > Debian is using a BTS for a bigger magnitude, isn't it? What about using
>> > their system? Just a thought...
>>
>> Debian BTS / Debbugs has indeed work with a large number of packages,
>> and the sources are available[1].  However, if you the summary on
>> Wikipedia, it it's an email based system, and although you can search
>> and view bugs from a web interface, the main input and output is
>> email.  What I like about it, is that there is the reportbug utility
>> which drives the bug reporting process.  Overall, it feels dated.
>>
>> Another system that is in use, is Bugzilla. It's used by e. g. Red
>> Hat.  It is a web based system, and if it has an email input, it's
>> only an addon.
>>
>> In the case of a packaging project, the main consideration is this:
>> the user who reports the issue, has a rough idea against which package
>> the issue needs to be filed. It still can be fuzzy in the case of
>> split packages, e.g. cups vs cupsd vs cupsclient, but let's assume
>> that the user knows which package the bugs belongs to.  What mantis
>> does for us, is that it shows the list of packages to the user, and
>> knows which maintainer is assigned to which package.  This is a great
>> feature.  I talked once to a Gentoo developer and their bugzilla
>> installation.  I learned that their bugzilla does not have that
>> mapping, and a human is necessary for the bug to be routed to the
>> right person.  In this light, Mantis does a pretty good job for us,
>> and if we look for a new system, we need to make sure that it has an
>> easy user interface to map from packages to maintainers.  That also
>> requires having some form of abstraction that we can use to represent
>> packages. In Mantis it's projects, but in a different bug tracker it
>> could be a different abstraction, e.g. a component or simply a tag.
>>
>> I'm with Ben on that I'd rather look for a way to restore the
>> catalog→mantis synchronization, the cheaper the better, and go from
>> there.  I don't want discourage anyone from looking for a better
>> bugtracker - if we had a better bugtracker, I'm all for it! There
>> already is a wiki page about the topic[3], so if anyone makes
>> progress, I'd encourage them to share it.
>>
>>
> I see that progress has been made on moving to Jira. Sounds good to me.
> Jira has the idea of a 'project leader' that can be the default assignee per
> project (or you can configure someone else as the default assignee, or an
> abstract role user). The wiki page was last updated in September 2010
> though, is this still 'the plan'?
>
> Given the plan looks to be to switch to Jira, with Crowd as a single
> sign-on solution, might as well grab Fisheye as well for browsing code and
> linking to Jira issues. Atlassian do their community licence for Fisheye as
> well.
>

if we really want to go commercial as with jira, then we might have a look
at youtrack:
* http://www.jetbrains.com/youtrack/
* http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/dashboard (300'000+ issues)
* http://confluence.jetbrains.net/display/YTD3/Import+from+Mantis
* http://www.jetbrains.com/youtrack/documentation/linux_installation.html

both, atlassian, and jetbrains offer similar licenses, i.e. free usage for
opensource projects. while i like jira lot and consider it an excellent
product, youtrack was late enough to get a slim and simple user interface
paired with the same basic feature set than jira.

rupert.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20110816/f3fdfb56/attachment-0001.html>