On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:19:30AM -0700, Stephen Lau wrote: > The b.o.o. team is not working on a bug tracking system. Their > responsibility lies in making a bug gateway to bugster; so I don't think > we need to talk to them. > > AFAIK, the bugster team has not shown in prior interest in an open bug > tracking system. At this point, I think it'd be easier for the > OpenSolaris community to just forget opening Bugster and move to a new > open bug tracking system. > > So given the options you listed below, I'd say save ourselves the > heartburn and skip #1 entirely and just go straight to #2.
I agree that we should start with a set of requirements, and I believe the Tonic team may have made some progress down this path that would form a good starting point. However, once we're agreed on those requirements, I see no reason we should not invite the Bugtraq team or another team at Sun to submit a plan for opening Bugtraq in a manner that would meet the requirements. If they decline to do so, or submit an unreasonable or inadequate plan, that will provide a clear statement of agreement on Sun's part that Bugtraq will no longer be the DMS used for generic OpenSolaris bugs. Whether they wish to continue using it for Solaris-specific bugs or use some as-yet-undefined distribution support feature in the open system is an internal decision. This model mirrors the one used to select Mercurial - Sun had the opportunity to propose TeamWare and subject it to an open evaluation against the defined requirements. It declined to do so, and the subsequent transition to Mercurial is proceeding apace without substantial opposition. It also relieves us of the obligation to make an a priori decision about the viability of Bugtraq or Sun's ability to open it while allowing us to proceed with requirements. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
