Re: More metaproblem

[Karl Fogel]

Glenn Morris <address@hidden> writes:
>> The barrier to the bug tracker change is well-documented on this list;
>> you're probably seen those conversations.  Explicit proposals to move
>> off debbugs have been made
>
>[citation needed]
>
>Mentioning Launchpad is not an explicit proposal.
>
>> and have been equally explicitly shot down on the grounds that debbugs
>> is easier for senior maintainers who are already familiar with it.
>
>I have put a lot of work into debbugs.gnu.org.
>I didn't much like it when we got it, but it was the system we had, so I
>did work to make it better. Because although many people were
>making a lot of noise, as usual not many people were doing anything.
>In terms of using it, I've closed well over 1000 bugs.
>
>It integrates pretty well with Emacs IMO, in part thanks to the add-ons
>other developers have written.
>
>If you want to replace it with something better, fine by me.
>I'd find your arguments more compelling if you had contributed more to
>Emacs, but perhaps the existing systems make it impossible for you to do
>so. I take Stefan concerns with the tracker much more seriously.
>But I have no energy left to make it any better.

The sentiment you express above, toward the end, is one I see more often
expressed in this project than in any other I work on.  I'm sorry to
hear it.

I'm also sorry you put so much work into debbugs only to have me
complain about it.  However, I don't think that the only possible way
people should be able to make proposals for new trackers (or whatever)
is to post gigantic, detailed proposals that anticipates every question
and technical difficulty -- and *then* get a "yes or no" answer.

Instead, the way this usually works is someone posts an overview
proposal first.

I don't have time to dig mine out of the archives now, but when I did it
was basically "How about we move to a modern, web-friendly bug tracker
that *also* integrates with email similarly to how debbugs does, so that
everyone has the functionality they want?"  I then named some systems
that do this, so people would know it wasn't just blue-sky dreaming.

This was shot down with "we senior devs like the way debbugs works, so
your proposal has little chance of happening".

So *after that*, I'm supposed to spend the time to write up the full,
detailed proposal?  As a way of maybe winning the argument anyway?
That's going to be a good investment of my time, after the initial
rejection of the idea?

I don't that's a reasonable way to expect volunteers to approach things.