Re: Bug trackers

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     What I kind of imagine is that bits of emacs which are relatively
>     separate would end up with their own "package" and this mailing list
>     (or the people responsible?) would be primarily tasked with fixing and
>     resolving them.
> 
> The issue here is to consider using a bug tracker.  To change the way
> we package Emacs would be a completely different issue (and I don't
> think we should do so).

Definetly; my point wasn't about changing the way emacs is developed
(if a bug tracker were to cause you to do that, it's probably the
wrong one to use).
 
> What leads you to raise the question of packaging in relation to
> using a bug tracker?

Debbugs currently is based on the assumption that every bug is
assigned to at least one package. In terms of a distribution, this
makes perfect sense, but it's different for applications. When you're
developing a single application like emacs, I'd imagine you'd separate
bugs into "components" or similar of the application, like "gtk
interface", "documentation", or "elisp" (as examples; you all'd come
up with better ones.)

That's really done just to help organize bugs, but is kind of
fundamental to debbug's internals.


Don Armstrong

-- 
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu