Re: Fossil updates & github copy

[Maurizio Boriani <baux80%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 28 July 2011 at 18:30, David Holland 
<dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>wrote:
> 
> 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. 

don't agree. bug tracker is relate to sourcecode it track, this is the 
common pointi (no source code = no bugs :-)), not only the storage.

> 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.)

may be it should be customized due to importing stuff.

> 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.

fossil bugtraker can be customized using an internal language (TH) and sql.
Might be interesting doing some test about this.

> 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.

may I help?

>  > 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 
>  > revision?
> 
> Let's buy every developer a pony, too...

you are a nice person :-) Why not some candies :-)

bye