Re: improving our contributing tools and workflow

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 26/09/13 12:26, David Kastrup wrote:
> The dean is annoyed: "Why can't you be like the mathematicians?  They
> just need pencils, paper, and a wastebasket and will work for years.
> And the philosophers don't even need a wastebasket..."

Not any more, either for mathematicians or philosophers ... :-)

> You can't make decisions without evaluating things, and evaluating
> things does not even mean that the work will lead to a change from the
> current state of affairs.  It may make you realize that minor changes
> will already address some problems, for example.

Quite, but one of the problems we have right now is that it's not clear what the 
broad requirements are.  For example -- we know that GitHub is out because of 
its proprietary nature.  That means that no one is going to waste time setting 
up a trial system using GitHub.  There are surely other things that can be 
clarified now so as to not evaluate systems that are going to be rejected out of 
hand.

For example -- is it essential that any solution proposed work well with Google 
Code issues?  Or will consideration be given to a solution that involves an 
alternative issue tracker?