-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
To clarify: I'm +1 on moving to Jira, -1 on using the ASF BZ, and +1 on using our own BZ, *if* that's OK with the ASF and Theo maintains it. ;) - --j. Theo Van Dinter writes: > 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. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFA18RhQTcbUG5Y7woRAs6gAKDvFDDsfWrM50GUQ0FXm5Z4M/rfrgCg62J8 D5lcJeCsUTSuGGmGjImtH2c= =X9WZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
