On 05/31/2011 04:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> So in order to start a brand new bikeshed to paint on, have we even
> considered a very trivial workflow like letting the bugtracker
> actually *only* track our existing lists and archives. That would
> mean:
>
> * Mailing lists are *primary*, and the mailing list archives are
> *primary* (yes, this probably requires a fix to the archives, but that
> really is a different issue)
> * New bugs are added by simply saying "this messageid represents a
> thread that has this bug in it", and all the actual contents are
> pulled from the archives
> * On top of this, the bug just tracks metadata - such as open/closed
> more or less. It does *not* track the actual contents at all.
> * Bugs registered through the bugs form would of course automatically
> add such a messageid into the tracker.
I have a web crawler for a website I maintain that I could modify to
crawl through the archives of -bugs, say from 5 Dec 2003 where the first
bug with the new format appears, and capture the structured data
(reference, logged by, email address, PG version, OS, description, and
message URL) into a table, for every message whose subject starts with
"BUG #", and capture each message URL for any message that has "BUG #"
somewhere in the subject, in a second table.
I presume the tables could be used even if it's decided to go with
something like RT or BZ, but before I spend a couple of hours on this
I'd like see some ayes or nays. Useful or not?
Joe
