[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: & non-GNU savannah-hosted projects?

From: Paul Wise
Subject: Re: & non-GNU savannah-hosted projects?
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:29:08 +0200

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 02:14 -0400, Glenn Morris wrote:

> A minor correction to this and the linked article: "they are in the
> process of encouraging all GNU maintainers to use it as BTS for GNU
> software."
> I haven't heard anything along these lines. We originally set it up for
> Emacs, then coreutils asked if they could use it. After that, a largely
> automatic method was implemented so that it was easy to add more GNU
> projects, and two more requested to start using it. GNU projects are
> welcome to use it if they want, but I'm not aware of any policy of
> actively "encouraging all GNU maintainers to use it".

I asked the author of the article about this on IRC before contacting
Jim and got this:

<pabs> zack: do you know if can also be used for non-GNU 
software hosted on savannah?
<zack> pabs: good question, I don't know; I only know that the person who set 
it up explicitly invited _GNU maintainers_ to use it
<zack> pabs: or, if you want, I can get you in touch with the GNU guy behind 
<pabs> zack: I asked on #gnu on freenode in the meantime (no answer yet), a 
contact for the GNU guy you mention might be useful
<zack> pabs: email in query, he's the maintainer of coreutils (as a mnemonic 
for the future)

and in query he gave me Jim Meyering's address. I guess Jim has been
inviting some GNU maintainers to use it?

> The problem I see with this is that Savannah seems to be quite careful
> to draw a distinction between GNU and non-GNU projects. There are
> separate "" and "", and
> "" and "" addresses, "official GNU
> software" and "non-GNU software" are counted separately, etc.
> There really isn't any mechanism to make such a distinction within
> debbugs. When you file a report, you get an ack "Thank you for filing a
> bug report with GNU"; the individual bug report pages all say "GNU bug
> report logs"; etc. I think it would require a separate
> "" instance to make it work correctly.

That seems to be reasonable.

BTW, some Debian folks on IRC noticed that doesn't
appear to be using the Debbugs version tracking feature and remarked
that this is one of the killer features of Debbugs. It would probably be
nice for GNU maintainers to be able to take advantage of that feature.
I'm personally not familiar with the internals of how it works, you
would need to talk to the debbugs folks about that.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]