[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Futile bug reports?
From: |
Tom Tromey |
Subject: |
Re: Futile bug reports? |
Date: |
14 Aug 2001 12:20:48 -0600 |
>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
Eli> In addition, if you want to keep the bug-tracker complete, the
Eli> maintainers themselves will have to file there bugs that they
Eli> themselves find and work on, as well as bugs people report to
Eli> them by private email.
Eli> This is the kind of burden I personally don't think we can afford
Eli> with the current number of active core maintainers.
My experience using various bug-tracking systems is that there is a
definite burden on the maintainers. There is manual labor involved.
Now, whether this is "too much" of course depends on the particular
maintainer. I personally prefer to use a bug-tracking system, at
least in most cases. For one thing it ensures I don't accidentally
forget something. I might accidentally delete a bug report from my
mail folder (this has happened) or I might lose a report (this has
happened too -- for instance my automake folder is so big that I often
lose entire threads).
Also I find I can use the bug tracking system to keep important
information. For instance if I do some research on a bug I can add
that to the PR, then leave it for a while. Other users can do this
too (this is a real benefit, in those rare situations where it
happens). Also I can change the priority of a PR so that I (and other
users) know how important I think it is.
Finally on sources we have things set up so that cvs commits which
mention a PR are automatically appended to the PR itself. That way
you can go from the PR directly to the patches which supposedly fix
the problem. This is a pretty useful capability.
For me, in the end, bug tracking is a must-have. I find it a useful
adjunct to email. I also think it adds another layer of openness to a
project if you let non-maintainers access the bug database. I think
this transparency is very important, even though its usefulness is
hard to see in an immediate way.
One last note: on sources we use Gnats. I'm not convinced this is the
best available free software bug-tracking system. I think bugzilla is
probably better. OTOH, Gnats has an Emacs interface, whereas bugzilla
is web-only.
Tom
- Re: Futile bug reports?, (continued)
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/08/14
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Peter S Galbraith, 2001/08/14
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/08/14
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Peter S Galbraith, 2001/08/14
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Richard Stallman, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Peter S Galbraith, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Marcelo Dias de Toledo, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Paul D. Smith, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Peter S Galbraith, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Paul D. Smith, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?,
Tom Tromey <=
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Richard Stallman, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Peter S Galbraith, 2001/08/15
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Kai Großjohann, 2001/08/14
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/08/14
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Richard Stallman, 2001/08/09
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Kai Großjohann, 2001/08/09
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Marcelo Dias de Toledo, 2001/08/09
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Richard Stallman, 2001/08/11
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Bill Richter, 2001/08/12
- Re: Futile bug reports?, Stein A. Strømme, 2001/08/13