Fixed bugs seem uninteresting. Several things failed on my
car, for instance, that were fixed. There is rarely the need
to revisit failures, except possibly in regression tests, like
brakes :-)
Except for release notes, why would anyone want to know about
fixed bugs? At most someone running an old version might
want to know.
On the other hand, a known bug is an intrinsic part of the
system (mis-)behavior and is something worth noting. Why
would you want to keep that in, say github? Axiom has a git
repo at savannah, sourceforge, and axiom-developer. Which
of these should be "the master bug list?".
If the bugs are kept in a repo, what happens when it changes?
Axiom was originally maintained in CVS and in Arch. Then it
was in SVN, now git. I don't think the bug trackers were
interchangeable.
It just seems reasonable to me to keep the known bugs with
the source code. git allows "disconnected development" because
it is a complete source tree and history. If you're disconnected
you can't reach the bug list on github.
Additionally you maintain your own fork of the project. That
fork will have its own bug trail. If someone forks your code,
shouldn't they also fork the bug list?
It is mildly surprising that the tools to maintain repos (e.g.
git) don't have "git bugnote" or some such support built in.
Or at least a "git bugfetch" to get the current bug list.