way too much time over the last few weeks fighting this
horrible bug system and trying to clean up the entries.
So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so
the bugs would veto the use
of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so it should be fairly trivial
to add an httpd-2.0 project.
Please don't tell me that bugzilla is insecure - it's already being
used by the ASF - adding one more
the entries.
So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so it should be fairly trivial
to add an httpd-2.0 project.
Please don't tell me that bugzilla is insecure
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
I'm all +1 on that, I mean, Buzilla sucks but it's better than GNATS, and
regarding security, the whole kit is run in a chrooted environment on a
machine not hosting any critical server (plus it's backed up and yada yada
yada...)...
Adding
Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
I'm all +1 on that, I mean, Buzilla sucks but it's better than GNATS, and
regarding security, the whole kit is run in a chrooted environment on a
machine not hosting any critical server (plus it's backed up
the entries.
So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so it should be fairly trivial
to add an httpd-2.0 project.
I had a look at GNATS this morning, in the hopes
the entries.
So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so it should be fairly trivial
to add an httpd-2.0 project.
We went through this whole exercise before
this
horrible bug system and trying to clean up the entries.
So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so it should be fairly trivial
to add an httpd-2.0 project
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 08:30:03AM -0800, Marc Slemko wrote:
We went through this whole exercise before, but it was dropped for two
One major problem is that how it is (was?) setup, it is impossible
to get automated email notifications of changes to all bugs, ie. like
the apache-bugdb mailing
Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We went through this whole exercise before, but it was dropped for two
main reasons: security nightmare and lack of effort giving to
replicating gnats features that many people have become used to and
really like, in the bugzilla environment.
For
So, Scarab's finally ready for people to start looking at it.
http://scarab.tigris.org/. It's got a pretty active developer community
around it now. There is a prototype bugzilla - scarab converter but
there are issues with bugzilla's XML export that are being worked out.
Not GNATS - scarab
+1 for investigating Scarab!
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Use of Bugzilla?
So, Scarab's finally ready for people to start looking at it.
http://scarab.tigris.org
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, Scarab's finally ready for people to start looking at it.
http://scarab.tigris.org/. It's got a pretty active developer community
around it now. There is a prototype bugzilla - scarab converter but
there are issues with bugzilla's XML export
13 matches
Mail list logo
