[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Use of the BTS for managing sponsorship



On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 04:40:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> If you agree with me, please send a mail to the bug log so that
> aj can be convinced (just use reply all to this mail). If you don't
> agree, feel free to voice you opinion and justify your position.

I will not cc the bug report, cause I think is useless to pollute the
bts with a consensus discussion on the way of handling sponsorship.

Probably debian-newmaint is a better place to discuss, but I'm not
subscribed, so please excuse my post here. [ Feel free to move this
discussion there ... ]

IMO a BTS based approach is a nice idea expecially for the availability
of history (usefull for the AM) and (even if less important) because
it's more 'official' than the current CGI approach to my eyes.

Anyway pollute the BTS with sponsorship request/response is a bit bad,
BTS is a bug tracking system, and I hard see request/response cycles fit
well in it: it's an hack (I know this can be a good point to use the BTS
for us :-)

Anyway we have the BTS sources and engine up and running is pretty easy
to set up another one with almost no pain [1] that we can use only for
sponsorship. Just put it somewhere like sponsor.debian.org.

My 0.02 EUR

[1] I know few of the BTS but I suppose sources are in the debian cvs
and that the handling is cron based. I volunteer to set up
sponsor.debian.org if we reach such a consensus, even if I suppose I
don't old enough unix permissions to do that ...

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney

Attachment: pgpvbUBYwQSw5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: