Ed Grimm wrote: > > The only issue I've had with the suggestions of offering Gerald > assistance is the suggestion of an implementation, Source Forge, rather > than of the idea, which is distributed development. I agree that Source > Forge would probably be the easiest to set up quickly; however, I've > gotten the feeling that Gerald has issues with Source Forge. It > wouldn't require the use of that product; distributed development was > around long before sourceforge.
I guess the thing I am most interested in is a more formal way of keeping track of the status of bugs... a simple tracking system that assigns some sort of ID would do the trick, along with a way to have a threaded bulletin board associated with each bug. That was probably the only feature of SourceForge that I found to be really useful. Currently there is no really good way to refer to bugs, e.g. someone just asked me "which bug" I was referring to and I had to dig back through my emails to see what they were - a simple way of tieing these things together into a single referrable entity with an id which can be formally closed or otherwise marked with a status of "open", "awaiting testing" or "failed testing", "closed" etc would be really good. Someone with the time could probably knock something together with MySQL and Embperl in about a day or two, without having to resort to the full SourceForge. Or maybe I'm just blowing smoke and someone already wrote just this sort of standalone bug tracking system... anyone know offhand? /Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
