At 09:10 AM 9/6/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote:
I am searching (part time) for a better method of maintaining the bug
list. I am thinking something along the lines of the Bugzilla project as
used by the Mozilla people (http://www.mozilla.org/bugs/). Or something
similar.
What I would like is:
1) easy entry and editing (by one or more admin people)
2) able to act as store for more than just bugs, also suggestions
3) ability to maintain a status on each bug/suggestion - such as fixed and
in what version it was fixed
4) more powerful search
5) Maybe the ability to accept ongoing comments from users (possibly
moderated) and maintain the thread to allow issues to be discussed. (This
should not be confused as another mailing list, that is not the function.)
6) ability to include graphics in posts maybe to allow screen shots to be
included - although these could be links to external pages.
My problem is I do not know much about Perl/CGI/webby stuff. So I am not
sure how one would go about installing this, getting the source etc.
I am enlisting a couple of people who think they can offer some time and
expertise to help set up a better bug/suggestion tracking system. Frankly
I do not want to get too involved in the nitty gritty apart from
commenting on the solutions that others dig up. Anyon got the skills
required? I am not too interested in I would like to help but have not
got the time. None of us have. If you were going to write along those
lines just don't write, thanks.
Hmmm... Most of the desired qualities are already in place, using the
associated list [EMAIL PROTECTED] As it was started, the
list was open to posting by any member and any editing (i.e., removal of
posts not relevant to the purpose of the list) was to be post-facto. This
was because it was considered to be much less work than having a moderator
approve all the post. But Mr. Wilson proposed to the association that the
list be a priori moderated and his proposal prevailed, over my objection,
by vote of the association.
As it was conceived, reports in the bug database (which should be renamed
the issues database to reflect Protel usage which includes suggestions)
would contain a URL to a thread in the issues mailing list. That satisfies
number 5 above. At least one bug report has such a link.
Making it unmoderated could be done at any time: moderation mostly adds
work, in my opinion, given that the list rules allow the moderators to
delete posts and threads. But if Mr. Wilson wishes to continue moderating
the list, I'm certainly not going to go back to the association to request
a reconsideration (but any member who voted for moderating the list could
make such a request).
Mr. Wilson has frequently expressed his aversion to creating more mailing
lists. It's beyond me why. The list was conceived as a convenient *storage*
place for user comments, not as a discussion list, per se. But because it
*is* a yahoogroups list, anyone can choose to be notified when something is
added to it by joining and setting one's options to receive list mail.
Anyway, that anyone can post (or submit a post) to the list satisfies item
(1) above. Number (2) is already there, really, the only barrier would be a
refusal by a moderator to accept a post to the list that was a suggestion
rather than a bug report.
Number 3, status information, would simply be a field in the existing
database. Isn't it already there? Further, any thread on the commentary
list could contain status updates. That, again, was how the list was conceived.
As to a more powerful search, number 4, the list is already indexed by the
major search engines (or could be), but anyone could host an index to the
list, or it could be placed in the filespace for protel-users-issues.
Graphics could likewise be in that filespace or externally hosted. The
central issues database, or its index, should not contain graphics, which
are likely to increase load times. It's enough that links be present where
graphics are appropriate. If these links are set to open a new browser
window, it would be even better.
In other words, we already have what Mr. Wilson wants; what is missing is
additional work to flesh it out or improve it.
Where it gets hosted is another discussion that will no doubt get a lively
discussion going (my thought www.protelusers.net - but that doesn't
exist...yet. protelusers.net should no be tied too closely to any company.
protelusers.net exists already, together with the .com and .org variations.
It apparently is not hosted. Care to guess who owns the names? One hint: it
isn't me.
I just registered protel-users.org on behalf of the association, as I have
reported on the association list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
That includes free web address forwarding, so the actual web page -- or,
really, an index to the web *pages*, could be hosted anywhere. I've got
lots of filespace available (on lomaxdesign.com), but so do many other
users.
