Another reader pointed to something called 'cvszilla'. If this works as
indicated, it will glue Bugzilla and CVS together "...at the hip".
I intend to test this app & will be delighted if it functions as noted.
I was about to go down that path myself (writing such a tool).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If we keep the cvs and bug tracking seperate, my life and the lives of the
> engineers will be more complicated when what we want in convenience.
>
> . We will have to place comments in cvs and in the bug tracking system
> independently.
> . When management wants a report, they want a 1:1 correspondence between
> what code was touched, the comments and a list of everyone who touched the
> file(s) in question. It'll end up on my desk and I don't want to do it by
> hand.
> . When a bug crops up, and they will, the management wants to "see" how we
> are handling the issue ... they want to see these two items joined at the
> hip.
>
> I'm not saying that these two items can't be kept separate but selling the
> idea that it's a much safer method of development would be much more
> difficult. They want to see everything connected. After the last snafu,
> their feeling "secure" is worth the time and effort to get CVS and a bug
> tracking system to work together.
>
> Jeanie
>
>
>
>>What would you ever enter twice? Bug reports go into GNATS, code goes
>>into CVS.
>>
>
>>In your bug tracking system, you can make certain references to versions.
>>For example, a bug can be marked as having been discovered in
>>release 'toaster_1_3' and laster marked as having been fixed in
>>'toaster_1_7'. Not by coincidence, these would correspond to release
>>tags in CVS.
>
>
--
John Minnihan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freepository.com
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
