> IMHO, if the design of a software package sucks, it isn't worth > improving, even if the implementation is elegant, beautiful, simple, > and smart. Especially when the goal is different from yours, there is > no point where you can contribute. > > That's why I started BugCommunicator. I surveyed some famous projects > before starting and concluded that no project would satisfy my > needs. Sicne it is critical for us to have a good BTS, I believe that > I didn't waste my time.
I certainly appreciate these arguments, however, I would appreciate it (as I think would others) if you could briefly enumerate what separates bugcomm from the others. That is, which design issues does bugcomm try to correct; just calling it better does not mean anything without arguments for why it is so. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
