On mån, 2011-05-30 at 22:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 2011-05-30 4:31 PM, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> Based on that, and past discussions, and things we've tried in the past,
> >> and gut feeling, and so on, it looks like Request Tracker would appear
> >> to be the next best thing to consider trying out. What do people think
> >> about that?
>
> > I'd be more optimistic that debbugs, or an adaption thereof, might more
> > nearly fit into the workflow.
>
> Yeah, that's my impression as well.
I'm very familiar with debbugs, so if we'd use that, I would hit the
ground running.
But a few things to consider:
* You would probably need a lot of manpower to customize and maintain this thing. And you'd be dealing with
lotsof unfamiliar technology. * Only very few people in Debian know the internals of this thing, so
don'texpect much timely help. * The actual workflow in Debian doesn't only consist of debbugs, but a bunch of
adhoc add-ons, additional web interfaces, and scripts. You'd have to adapt or port or replace some of these
as well. * It's not a system set up for easy searching and aggregating, the sort of thing an SQL-savvy crowd
mightexpect. One of the better ways nowadays to search for bugs in Debian is actually the UDD, which is a
dumpof the bug database imported into a PostgreSQL instance. See previous point. * Actually, a number of
teamsin Debian use Request Tracker as well (see http://wiki.debian.org/rt.debian.org). I don't know why,
justsaying.
