> Richard Foley wrote it for us. The source is downloadable from
> bugs.perl.org.
>
> It's been capturing bugs well (modulo the occasional natural hiccups
> when there's one guy working on it). The new set of bug admins are
> whittling and pruning the bug list after it was left to grow with years
> of nobody following up.
>
> Richard can describe the features (email controllable this, SQL
> accessible that, web interface to the other).
I'm familiar with bugs.perl.org. However, I recall quite a bit of
discussion on p5p about whether to scrap it for a new system. Since we're
not directly working on perl 5 here, we have the option to take another
route. I'm not saying we necessarily should, but we should at least discuss
it.
What are the pros of bugs.perl.org? What are the cons? Could the
patch-tracking vaporware in perlbug be useful for the automated testing MGS
has been advocating?
Does perlbug support separate product tracks? There will be a distinct set
of bugs/feature requests/etc. for perl6. These need to be stored
separately.
++t
