On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 09.02.2018 um 01:19 schrieb Patricia Shanahan: > >> On February 8, 2018, at 5:51 AM, Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> # Start spreading knowledge in our development team. >>> >>>> >>>> 1) I would like to propose a Product Backlog / OIL (OpenIssue) List >>>>> to priorize Issues we need to work on. The most Valueable item comes >>>>> to the top, the least to the bottom. What Value exactly is is up to >>>>> discussion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Theoretically, we have a list of issues in Bugzilla with target 4.2.0. >>>> Validating them all and/or setting targets will basically give you >>>> what you wish. I think Bugzilla has some concept of an issue weight >>>> that would more or less allow to prioritize issues with the current >>>> tooling, so this can be done. At least, once we agree on list on a >>>> series of "must-haves" for 4.2.0, these could be turned into something >>>> similar to your backlog. >>>> >>> Maybe we should not discuss tooling now. I think in the end it has to >>> work. Jira is mostly a convenient choice. But we can think of all other >>> sort of combinations. (However we have already a lot of Tools.So I would >>> rather try to reduce those. We can try Bugzilla, but i do not want to >>> start modifying Bugzilla in order to get what we need. >>> >> >> I would prefer to avoid the upheaval of switching to a different issue >> tracker if at all possible. >> > > +1 > > Jira is just another tool that wouldn't bring us any nearer to closed > issues. BTW, start new? Then you would trash all old issues which isn't a > good thing. Move them over to Jira? Great, who is the volunteer to do the > migration? ;-) > > > +1 to that. We have Bugzilla bug numbers in SVN and even in the code, and links to Bugzilla URLs in places too, who is going to find and replace all of those? I also find Bugzilla much faster to work with and lighter on the network (not everyone is in a 1st world country). Damjan
