Re: [bug-gettext] bug tracker: savannah vs. debbugs

[Daiki Ueno]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

>> On a related note, I thought it might
>> make sense if we eventually move over to debbugs.gnu.org, as automake
>> and libtool do.  Though I haven't used it much, it apparently has a
>> concept of "user tags" which could be used as categories.
>
> My preference goes the other way around: I do prefer the Savannah tracker
> over debbugs.
>
> Rationale:
>
> 1) Generally speaking, web-based tools with a "comment"/discussion facility
> are more efficient to use than email-based tools when the discussion remains
> self-contained (not connected to other issues).
> Only when issues are not well understood, or when an issue is composed of
> several sub-issues, then email is better. Because only then there is a need
> for mails to be forwarded to different mailing lists or for threads to be
> split.
>
> 2) More in detail: When working with mail, a comment on lists.gnu.org and
> in my mailbox are two different things, but they represent the same entity.
> Therefore I need to spend time looking up the lists.gnu.org URL of a
> particular
> comment, as a reference. With debbugs the conversion is a bit simpler:
> address@hidden <-->
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=xxxxx
> but it's still a conversion that's needed in many cases anyway.
>
> Sometimes also I don't have the mail in my mailbox, so I have to copy&paste
> from the lists.gnu.org page. All this wastes time.
>
> Also, with debbugs you have to spend time setting up the "To" and "CC" list.
> (Be careful not to omit the debbugs CC.)
>
> When working with mail, I have to move every mail to archive manually. So,
> send a mail to change a status AND manage my mailbox accordingly. With a
> web-based interface, I only have to change the status.
>
> Whereas in a web-based tracker, an issue is represented by one URL - there's
> no need to convert it to/from an email address, and in most cases it's just
> a hyperlink that I can click on.
>
> 3) The Savannah tracker has extensive per-project customizations. I fear
> that with debbugs less per-project customizations are available.
>
> 4) Submitting a bug through a web-based tool is easier for most people than
> through debbugs. IMO the barrier to giving feedback should be low.
>
> 5) debbugs has not many advocates: you can see in
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/Packages.html
> that aside from Jim, Paul, and Ludovic, it's mostly only Emacs, Automake,
> and Libtool that use it.
>
> There are not many advantages of debbugs:
>
> 1) It has a full-text search engine.

2) It can be accessed through the Emacs interface:
http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/debbugs.html

It works pretty nicely and could address some of your concerns.

I actually don't have strong opinion here.  However, having seen quite a
few people being confused that we have multiple places to report bugs
(this list and the tracker) and that discussions often scatter across
those places, I am wondering if we could unify them.

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno