* Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 14:38]: > > Also, we don't have any pseudo package for edge or release > > management stuff yet, so someone has to request it (and before > > requesting it think about how it will be used and what we really > > need). > > That's what I'm trying to do here. But maybe I should start this > discussion in -release to be more productive.
Sorry, I hope my reply didn't appear as unproductive or hostile. Since your last mail was sent directly to me with a CC to the list, I thought I'd just point out that it's not me making a decision here. Anyway, I'd personally like to see more discussion about how to use this feature before actually going ahead and using it. There are the obvious use scenarios of actually using it to track real bug dependencies. I can also imagine an edge pseudo package to track some issues. However, how far should this go? Should we have a bug report for *every* issue and have 'edge' depend on it? Some projects do it like this and I think it works for them. On the other hand, we use the BTS for WNPP and I feel a specific system would be more suitable for it than the BTS (for example, using the BTS for WNPP makes it really hard to figure out when the status of a WNPP bug last changed). While I'm a great fan of proper tracking (including archival), I just wonder if the BTS is suitable, or maybe it just needs more features. For example, to keep track of tasks, it would also be helpful to have some kind of overview of the completion of a task (70% done). The BTS doesn't have this feature at the moment, maybe it should... or maybe we need some specific task tracking system. I personally haven't thought about it enough. Maybe these thoughts will lead to some discussion. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
