Re: Debbugs bugtracker testbed for Octave?

[Moritz Borgmann]

> On 20-Mar-2008, Thomas Weber wrote:
>
> | I'm actually somewhat undecided about debbugs for Octave. The biggest
> | problem for me is its concept of packages. While that fits extremely
> | good for a distribution, I'm unsure about Octave. The emacs devs
> | actually seemed to like it: bugs are sent in against a standard "target"
> | and then assigned to one of the core componets as a replacement for
> | packages. I'm not sure if such a splitting would make sense for Octave,
> | though.
>
> I don't think it matters whether we use more than one bug reporting
> target/package/whatever.  The important thing is to get an archive on
> the web so that reports aren't dropped and it's clear when someone has
> claimed a bug report and said that they will work on it.

wouldn't it make sense if we started out a somewhat more structured 
discussion with the goal to pick a bug tracker, along the lines of

1) Define requirements for bug tracking system, loosely prioritized 
(probably makes sense to start off with a proposal from John?)
2) Have people who have experience with different bug trackers chime 
in on how requirements are met
3) Decide

Generally I think there's no doubt that a bug tracker would be hugely useful.

Cheers,

Moritz