Re: bug tracking

[John W. Eaton]

On  3-Mar-2010, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:

| This was it, precisely. I was OK with the Savannah tracker. I thought
| you disapproved of it.

I remember not being completely happy with it.  That was probably
mostly because I am so accustomed to reading bug reports in email with
Emacs, which is also what I use for editing code, so working that way
is easy for me as there is no need to switch between applications when
looking at a bug report and then fixing a bug.  But at this point, I
think it is more important to have a central database for bug reports
with a better interface than an email archive.  So I'm willing to make
the switch.

| In any case, I think that in order for the transition to be successful
| we need to be strict and only fix bugs actually reported in the
| tracker. When a bug report arrives at the mailing list, we shall point
| out the reporter to the tracker. Anyone is free to transfer the bug
| from ML to the tracker, but we need a handshake that it must be done
| prior to fixing the bug.

I agree with this, except that initially I think we need to be
somewhat accomodating since all the current documentation and the
bug_report function all point to he mailing list.  We can be a little
less forgiving once the next stable release is out and the
documentation and bug_report function has been updated.

| If we all agree to this policy, all what is left is to vote for the
| tracker. My vote goes for Savannah.

OK, I'm willing to try again.

I will try to update the documentation and bug_report function
relatively soon.

jwe