Scott, ou are right, it is infrastructure who are doing the work, so if
they decide that scarab will be switched off it is fine with me.
It would be nice if we could get a database dump from scarab in order to
take over at least the more important bugs.
Thomas
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Scott Eade wrote:
I pretty much agree with Thomas - the comments apply to Turbine as well as
Torque.
The problem is that I cannot see how the requirements of Torque alone
(Turbine have already voted to move) can justify the existence of the ASF
Scarab instance.
There has in fact been some recent progress with Scarab over at Tigris - e.g.
on their instance you can look at issues without logging in. The trouble is
that to get the ASF instance upgraded will require more effort from those
involved than can be justified. If there was some momentum behind Scarab
things would be quite different, but unfortunately this is not the case.
I just went to login to see if there was any other projects using it and what
do you know, it isn't running.
Got to be a +1 to Jira I'm afraid.
Scott
Thomas Fischer wrote:
I am not convinced we should move away from Scarab, because Scarab is one
of the few Open Source Projects known to me which uses Torque internally,
and I do think that we should support it by using it.
On the other hand, if moving away from Scarab would reduce work load to the
ASF admins, this is a very good reason to do so. Henning, did you ask
infrastructure how they feel about this ?
Also, what is problematic about using Scarab is that one needs an account
just to read the bug reports, but I am not sure whether this can be
configured or not, so not sure whether this qualifies as a reason to move
away from scarab.
Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
