On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 15:50:27 CEST Halla Rempt wrote: > On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 15:28:30 CEST Nate Graham wrote: > > I don't see anyone really trying to argue otherwise. > > I have certainly made that argument many times. Since only developers can > add tags, it will be impossible for ordinary users to provide enough > information to classify the bug. Tagging systems suck big-time. Looking it > GIMP's gitlab issues shows that not even the OS is reliably tagged!
What Halla said. Every time we have this conversation, Krita is the special case, because it *is* a special case -- many many users, diverse platforms, non-technical bug-reports. We must not discount Krita's experiences and needs -- conversely not ignore the needs of some obscure edge-case tool that is only going to get FreeBSD sysadmins to file bug reports (which might be *fine* in GitLab issues, because there's only ever 3 users). Any migration **has** to be able to handle huge numbers of issues, and also provide maintainers tools to manage them, and to handle the diversity of issue meta-data that bugzilla handles. To move this conversation forward, we'd need a concrete example of "these are the tools used to manage issue lifecycle, similar to how bugs lifecycle in bugzilla works". I know Harald has built tools and views and things to help out there, but we do need a .. well, a concrete proposal for how things would work. That it's **possible** to manage a gazillion issues in GitLab (maybe EE features, though) can be seen by looking at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/ gitlab/-/issues GitLab issues in GitLab: there's 37 thousand of them, but there's also 78 pages of labels at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/ labels to pick from. I suspect there's a non-0 amount of FTE's doing bug- labeling -- can we afford that? [ade]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.