Re: bug tracking

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:56 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On  3-Mar-2010, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> | This was it, precisely. I was OK with the Savannah tracker. I thought
> | you disapproved of it.
>
> I remember not being completely happy with it.  That was probably
> mostly because I am so accustomed to reading bug reports in email with
> Emacs, which is also what I use for editing code, so working that way
> is easy for me as there is no need to switch between applications when
> looking at a bug report and then fixing a bug.  But at this point, I
> think it is more important to have a central database for bug reports
> with a better interface than an email archive.  So I'm willing to make
> the switch.
>
> | In any case, I think that in order for the transition to be successful
> | we need to be strict and only fix bugs actually reported in the
> | tracker. When a bug report arrives at the mailing list, we shall point
> | out the reporter to the tracker. Anyone is free to transfer the bug
> | from ML to the tracker, but we need a handshake that it must be done
> | prior to fixing the bug.
>
> I agree with this, except that initially I think we need to be
> somewhat accomodating since all the current documentation and the
> bug_report function all point to he mailing list.  We can be a little
> less forgiving once the next stable release is out and the
> documentation and bug_report function has been updated.
>

Can it be arranged that bug reports sent to address@hidden receive
automatic reply explaining that we moved to Savannah tracker and
posting bugs there is preferable? I think that could help spread the
message.



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz