Re: Choice of bug tracker

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> That's not my position, FWIW.  I'm ready to try some less-than-perfect
> bug trackers, if the things they lack are relatively minor.
>
> The problem from my POV was that alternatives were researched, the
> results of the research were published and discussed, the downsides
> identified, and then the process stalled, perhaps because people got
> disappointed by the deficiencies.
>
[...]
> I'd prefer that "someone in charge" took a leap of hope, produced some
> site we could use, and let us try it and see how workable is it.  If
> that/those person(s) did a good job, and would be ready to work on
> fixing the issues reported during the initial use until we could make
> the final decision, we could have some hope of finding a better tool.
> the main challenge in this particular endeavor is that we'd need to
> use two different trackers in parallel, at least for some time, so
> some solution for syncing them would be in order.
>
> I hope something like this would be possible.
>
[...]
> The crucial (for me) question is: how much less efficiently?  With the
> current mail-based flows, reviewing a patch is a snap, and applying a
> patch takes mere seconds, even if I need to fix the commit message.
> If seconds become minutes, it would be bad for productivity, and
> eventually bad for our development rate.

FWIW, I fully agree with everything that Eli is saying above.

So it seems to me that we're mostly looking for one or more volunteers
to do this important work.  Any takers?