Hi Magnus,
On 05/30/2011 08:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> It's fine that a bug tracker *tracks* bugs. It should not control
> them. That's not how this community currently works, and a lot of
> people have said that's how they want it to stay (at least for now).
If I may belabor the point, what do you see as an example of
"controlling" the bugs? To put some context, there could be at least
three ways a bug could be closed when someone commits a patch that fixes
(or claims to fix) a bug:
a. The committer has to use a web interface to indicate the bug is closed
b. The committer has to send an email to a mail interface
c. The commit message gets routed to a mail interface that, seeing
something like "bug #1234" in the first line, automatically closes the bug
Based on the discussion so far, it's obvious that option b is more
desired than a (where the tracker is, in a sense, controlling *you*),
but is option c --while presumably more desirable since there's one less
thing to do or remember-- an instance of "control", since the tracker
takes an automatic action? Or do you want the tracker *not* to require
or take any of the actions, i.e., let someone/thing other than the
committer/commit message worry about tracking the bug's status, leaving
it up to volunteers, as Tom said?
Joe
