On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 19:28 +0000, bearophile via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Andrew Edwards: > > > How do you recover your work from the GitHub five years from > > now when GitHub falls off the edge of the earth > > Online sites are ephemeral. So unless there is a way to move the > bug repository off GitHub if the need arises, I am not going to > appreciate the idea of moving bugs to GitHub.
Given the current site is equally ephemeral, isn't this a sophistic argument? Switching bug reporting systems is not-trivial, always. The issue though is workflow for those who "should" be using it. The point being made here is really: what is the best system for creating an active system of users reporting and developers fixing bugs. There has been a directly analogous argument going on with SCons. We shifted from Subversion on Tigris with it's bug tracker, to Mercurial on BitBucket but keeping the Tigris bug tracker because it has lots of wizzy functionality and the BitBucket bug tracker was poor. However despite the wizzy functionality of the bugtracker, it has become fallow – no-one uses it because it is not "front and centre" with the repository. However the BitBucket system is not good enough, and the Tigris one cannot be sanely connected to BitBucket. We are in the middle of experiments with a third way: an independent bugtracker that allows for two way linkage to the BitBucket repositories. It is a lot of work to prepare the ground and make the change, but it is being done because the current workflow is failing. Just because a bugtracker is a good one, doesn't make it one that is good to use in a given context. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
