David Brown wrote: > Nonsense (just keeping the spirit of the discussion up). You are assuming > one particular development model. Whether a particular tool helps a > development model is a decision the maintainers of that project need to > use. Issue tracking makes the same kinds of assumptions that most revision > control systems make, of a centralized development model. Something like > linux kernel development, with a very different model. > > If your attitude is like Linus, he doesn't want to see bug reports, he > wants patches, the tracking system would just be filled with noise.
Linus isn't a particularly good example. Linus is becoming more of an example of what *not* to do when running a project as time goes by. First, the Linux kernel has been doing more than little bit of wheel spinning in the 2.6.X series. An actual tracking system along with a testing methodology would prevent quite a bit of that. Second, Linus *does* have a tracking system--his lieutenants. Just because his tracking system isn't named "Trac", "Bugzilla", etc. doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, by the way, several of his lieutenants *do* use those kinds of methods to track their issues. > However, I agree that issue tracking systems are indeed quite useful, when > used properly. I have just seen too many times where bugs just vanish into > them to declare that they should always be used. An issue tracking system has nothing to do with ignoring bugs. That happens with or without such a system, and I find that it happens more often *without* such a system than with. -a -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
