On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:55:47AM +1200, Sidney Markowitz wrote: > On the other hand, if somebody at Apache is taking care of setting it > all up and using it is as easy as what we are doing now with Bugzilla, > it would not make that much difference.
Well, the ASF already has Jira setup, and it's running, and they have support. Bugzilla is also setup, but has no support at all IIRC even from the projects using it. When we last went over this, it basically came down to: keep using our current BZ (the only issue is that it's not an ASF machine I think), switch to ASF BZ but take over the administration of it and everything else, switch to ASF Jira. While I'm all for OSS, if Jira is already setup, and it's "the" ASF bug tracking system, I see no reason to not use it. So, I'm +0.9 on leaving BZ where it currently is. I think it's fine, but am concerned if we're going all ASF that it's not an ASF machine. I'm -0.9 on the ASF BZ. One of us will have to take over administration of it, and it's going to be a ton of work to properly take our BZ data and put it in another BZ. Not to mention that if the ASF is trying to get projects into Jira, there'll be no point to go through the BZ move. I'm +0.5 on going to Jira. It's already setup, we don't need to deal with it from an admin point, but it's going to potentially be a ton of working getting our BZ data into it. If we want to goto an ASF system though, I think this is the best option. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "This meat is hard to chew," Tom beefed jerkily.
pgpPW9x3J76wc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
