> Since you are talking about duplicating features, I wonder: why you > put so much time into the tracker, while we could try to make tight > bindings with an existing tracker, that among others already have the > mail interface feature? Is there a specific reason for this?
In my opinion and in the opinion of CERN, the tracker is the most interesting feature in Savane. This was why Savane was chosen by CERN over SourceForge, Bugzilla and GForge by CERN. This is the most used feature at CERN - where the mail interface would be a plus but is not the main issue. So it's logical to improve that part of Savane. We could make binding over another bug tracking system - but what would be the point in using Savane, so? > -- Sylvain PS: we never received your reply at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Any clue? Nope. -- Mathieu Roy +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ | | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ | | Not a native english speaker: | | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Savane-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
