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

Re: Etch Release Tracking in debbugs (Was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

* Daniel Ruoso <daniel@ruoso.com> [2005-03-16 14:38]:
> > Also, we don't have any pseudo package for edge or release
> > management stuff yet, so someone has to request it (and before
> > requesting it think about how it will be used and what we really
> > need).
> That's what I'm trying to do here. But maybe I should start this
> discussion in -release to be more productive.

Sorry, I hope my reply didn't appear as unproductive or hostile.
Since your last mail was sent directly to me with a CC to the list, I
thought I'd just point out that it's not me making a decision here.

Anyway, I'd personally like to see more discussion about how to use
this feature before actually going ahead and using it.  There are the
obvious use scenarios of actually using it to track real bug
dependencies.  I can also imagine an edge pseudo package to track some
issues.  However, how far should this go?  Should we have a bug report
for *every* issue and have 'edge' depend on it?  Some projects do it
like this and I think it works for them.  On the other hand, we use
the BTS for WNPP and I feel a specific system would be more suitable
for it than the BTS (for example, using the BTS for WNPP makes it
really hard to figure out when the status of a WNPP bug last changed).

While I'm a great fan of proper tracking (including archival), I just
wonder if the BTS is suitable, or maybe it just needs more features.
For example, to keep track of tasks, it would also be helpful to have
some kind of overview of the completion of a task (70% done).  The BTS
doesn't have this feature at the moment, maybe it should... or maybe
we need some specific task tracking system.  I personally haven't
thought about it enough.

Maybe these thoughts will lead to some discussion.
Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: