[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Fossil updates & github copy
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:19:31PM +0200, Maurizio Boriani wrote:
> > > > may be nice and useful import the bugtracker in fossil too, what do
> > > > you think about?
> > >
> > > I don't plan to. Getting the GNATS database into a form that allows
> > > proper processing is a lot work and I don't think it is too useful at
> > > this point.
> > It's also a completely different problem and I don't see that
> > importing it into an SCM tool is useful.
> With respect, I don't agree. I think (the author of fossil too) that bug
> track is a foundamental part of a project so is natural to have source code
> and bug track in the same tool. It isn't only natural but useful too, for
> example, in off-line work to have a copy of source code, internal documents
> and bug track, eventually synced back when back on-line.
It's true that offline access to the bug database can be convenient.
However, about the only thing source code management and bug tracking
tools have in common is that they store data. A tool that tries to
provide both at once is likely to be good at neither, or will be good
at one and the other will be an afterthought. (Or it might leave you
to do most of the work yourself, like if you try to use SCM file
tracking to store bugs in text files.)
I have no idea what bug tracking features might be in Fossil; however,
there are a bazillion bug tracking tools, and most or all of them
cannot import our existing bug database, either because it's too big
or because it doesn't match predetermined schema constraints or both.
Furthermore, there is already a plan for moving forward on the bug
database; it just hasn't gone anywhere in a while due to lack of time.
> It's a lot of work, true, but it's a lot of work change scm from cvs vs.
> fossil|git|whatever. Why not rethink bug tracking too, while doing this
Let's buy every developer a pony, too...
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |