On 18/07/2012 14:06, mehdi houshmand wrote:

Hi Mehdi,

As we've seen this morning, my ineptitude at even basic bureaucracy doesn't really qualify me to show a bias to either side, but I'll give my 2 cents worth since I am a stakeholder in this debate:

On 18 July 2012 13:17, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com <mailto:vhenneb...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    <snip/>
    Well, the problem is probably not the lack of a BTS here, it’s
    probably
    the commit message that shouldn’t be that short. And a longer
    description should be in status.xml anyway. Also, I find the list of
    comments that usually appears in Bugzilla entries confusing more than
    anything else. You have to wander through the comments to understand
    what is going on.


Surely having lots of comments is a good thing? It means there's been a discussion about the issue and possibly some conclusion has been come to as to how to solve the problem. Even if the comments don't arrive at a conclusion, then surely having the discussion would better document nuances surrounding any particular issue?

+1. I totally agree and that's one of the key benefits of using BTS over status.xml.


The only time this can become confusing is if there are disparities in the flow of the conversation between bugzilla comments and mailing list posts. This doesn't happen very often so I don't really see this as a consideration we should be trying to mitigate.

Yes I agree that is the exception rather than the rule.

    That said, if a bug affects the rendering part of FOP which is not
    really unit-testable at the moment, the commit is unlikely to contain
    any test, so it helps to be able to retrieve an example output on
    Bugzilla. And I suppose that for the sake of consistency, the same
    should be done for layout bugs.


Agreed! I think whatever we decide, we must be consistent if only to prevent confusion. It's easier following one rule for all than it is remember and adhering to caveats.

    Since everyone seems to be in favour of switching to Bugzilla, I
    suppose
    I’ll start from now on. But I urge the proponents of this move to
    convert the status.xml logic as soon as possible.


Again I agree with Vincent here, that status.xml gets me every time! I almost invariably forget to update it, now again, that's my bad but it does seem somewhat redundant if all that information is in bugzilla/JIRA. I appreciate it's used for release info, but there's got to be a better solution.

I'm happy to follow the consensus on this one and I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

Yes I think we have consenus. I can start a formal vote if necessary, but I don't think it is in this instance.

Thanks,

Chris


Mehdi


Reply via email to