Hi there Thrilling to see things moving.
I'm a long time trac user and was looking forward to bloodhound to become a trac with a better look and usability. I think the discussion here about basing bloodhound on trac or on django / flask misses an important point: trac is actually more than just a web development framework. it provides quite a lot of features that bloodhound builds on. the core issue-tracking is only one part. Things I quite like about trac is the tightly integrated wiki system and the various possibilities for querying the issues data. Agreed there is some cruft that comes with trac too... Newly implementing some of these parts that make trac and bloodhound great, definitely means quite a lot of work. The main appeal of bloodhound to me was that it was built "on the shoulders" of trac and didn't need to reimplement a lot of stuff that trac just has out of the box. It was a head start comparrf to starting an issue tracker from scratch. The question is, are there enough people willing to spend their time for a complete new implementation of the x-th issue tracking system? I don't want to appear discouraging, I really like django and I would certainly be happy if bloodhound evolved. But the purpose of the bloodhound project would change quite radically from bringing a better UI to trac to building a new issue tracking system from scratch. If the separation from trac really pushes the project forward then this would be great! Perhaps whilst keeping some of the "spirit" of trac. Cheers Samuel 2017-11-06 16:19 GMT+01:00 Olemis Lang <[email protected]>: > On 11/6/17, John Chambers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > >> 3. Do any design docs live anywhere at all? I've also got Python / > >> Django development experience. Most recently building APIs with Django > >> Rest Framework. So can help on that front. Guess we need to do a bit of > >> a review of where things stand to get a plan in place for what to do > >> next. > >> > > > > Once the official Bloodhound wiki and issue tracker are back online we > can > > then start to discuss and bring together our plans for the future of > > Bloodhound. But there is no reason why we can't start those discussions > on > > this list in the meantime. Nothing has been decided as of yet. > > > > That's correct . All previous decisions have been specified and > documented in Bloodhound Enhancement Proposal (a.k.a. BEP) documents > available. Once the project wiki will be back you'll be able to see > the multi-product architecture (BEP-0003), etc ... It's all quite > Trac-specific, so you might want to spend some time reading the Trac > docs [1]_ first. > > [...] > > .. [1] http://trac.edgewall.org > > > -- > Regards, > > Olemis - @olemislc > > Apache™ Bloodhound contributor > http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound > http://blood-hound.net > > Brython committer > http://brython.info > http://github.com/brython-dev/brython > > SciPy Latin America - Cuban Ambassador > Chairman of SciPy LA 2017 - http://scipyla.org/conf/2017 > > Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ > Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ > > Featured article: >
