[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why bash doesn't have bug reporting site?

From: Mike Frysinger
Subject: Re: Why bash doesn't have bug reporting site?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:41:42 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.1; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; )

On Tuesday 14 January 2014 01:31:01 Yuri wrote:
> On 01/13/2014 12:32, Eric Blake wrote:
> > A mailing list IS a bug reporting system.  When something receives as
> > low a volume of bug reports as bash, the mailing list archives are
> > sufficient for tracking the status of reported bugs.  It's not worth the
> > hassle of integrating into a larger system if said system won't be used
> > often enough to provide more gains than the cost of learning it.  In
> > particular, I will refuse to use any system that requires a web browser
> > in order to submit or modify status of a bug (ie. any GOOD bug tracker
> > system needs to still interact with an email front-end).
> e-mail has quite a few vulnerabilities. Spam, impersonation, etc. In the
> system relying on e-mail, spam filter has to be present. And due to this
> you will get false positives and false negatives, resulting in lost
> information.

yeah, none of those are real issues, nor are they specific to e-mail.

> Among other benefits:
> * Ability to search by various criteria. For ex. database-based tracking
> system can show all open tickets or all your tickets. How can you do
> this in ML?

use one of the many archives and do free form text search.  or download the 
files and run `grep` yourself :p.

> * Ability to link with patches. In fact, github allows submitters to
> attach a patch, and admin can just merge it in with one click, provided
> there are no conflicts.

git has dirt simple integration with e-mail too.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]