Re: [OctDev] Octave-Forge bugs in the tracker?

[Carnë Draug]

Hi everyone,

I want to know what's the end of this? It seemed to me that everyone
thinks a good idea (or at least did not oppose) start using the bug
tracker. The main point of discussion seems to be whether move or not
to savannah (since we already have on in SF that is not being used).

1 month and a half seems to me like enough time for everyone to give
an opinion. I'll just try to sum everyone's opinions here to make it
easier to get a fast feeling of the devs opinion without losing much
time reading everything.

Please don't take it bad if I don't write exactly your opinion, I'm
just trying to make a pool of what was said to speed any decision.
Anyone can go back and read exactly what was said.

To the question whether or not is possible to reassing bugs from one
project to another (the main reason why move to savannah), it seems
that yes, it is possible:
One question was made:
On 7 August 2011 16:10, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 7 August 2011 05:41, Søren Hauberg <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Has it been determined if it is easy to move bugs between
>> Savannah trackers?
>
> Yes, it is. I'm not sure what sort of access level is necessary, but
> you can move bugs around. I see a "reassign this item" thing at the
> bottom of bug reports that lets me type in any projected hosted in
> Savannah to move things around.

Also, moving to savannah does not imply changing revision system.
Savannah supports GNU Arch, GNU Bazaar, CVS, Git, Mercurial and
Subversion ( http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/WhyChooseSavannah ).

Søren:
In favour to move to savannah only because it would create a single
entry point for bugs which is nice for users. If it's just to simply
start using a bug tracker, the one in SF is enough. Agrees with JWE
that octave-forge developers should not have access to mess with
octave bugs.

John W. Eaton:
Against moving to savannah if that means that the current large number
of octave-forge developers get access to control octave bug database
since that means they also have complete write-access to octave
repository.

Jordi:
in favout to move since it helps bring close the two projects and
thinks it's not that much work since it's mainly reuploading the code
and changing some links on the web pages. Each octave-forge package
should have its own repository.

Carlo defalco:
Does not oppose moving to savannah but thinks that octave and
octave-forge are two very different projects that should not be too
close. Says that moving to savannah will be more work than it looks
like since webpages are generated automatically (which will have to be
updated) and the procedure to upload new package versions is also
dependent on SF features. If the move of repository and bug tracker is
moved to savannah, everything should be moved there. It would be nice
to have a way to distribute packages that are not developed in
octave-forge. If moved, there should be a single repository for all
packages, no need to change that.
If the only reason to move is because of a bug tracker, we should use
the one in SF.

Thomas Weber:
Showed that most of the devs contributing to octave are not
contributing to octave-forge and vice-versa and as such they should be
kept well separated. If there's not enough octave-forge devs wanting
to move, then there should be no move. Also, moving to another
revision system is not worth the effort. If the move does occur, it
should be complete and not have web hosting in SF and the rest in
savannah. Moving to another host and have another revision system will
not increase the number of contributors.

Philip Nienhuis:
Merging octave and octave-forge general help mailing list should be
done. Does not think necessary to have a bug tracker where is easy to
move things between octave and octave-forge but won't resist to it. If
combined, the distinction should be clear. thinks we should keep svn
as the revision system.

Olaf Till:
Welcomes move of octave-forge to savannah (and the name cganhe of
octave-forge to something such as octave packages). Maling lists of
two projects (at least dev mailing list) should be kept separated. The
two projects should be kept well separated.

Finnaly, my opinion is that moving to savannah would be nice. The two
projects should not be merged and their bug trackers would be
separated (while allowing to reassing them to the other which is
posible according to Jordi). Inside the octave-forge project in
savannah, each package would have its own category (not be a separated
project). While I'm starting to prefer other revision system over svn,
I think we should keep svn since it's easier for new devs (make it
simple for new contributors) and everyone is already used to it. One
svn repository for all packages is enough (one can checkout a single
directory if so desired anyway). If we do stay in sourceforge, then we
should at least start using its bug tracker (which some users do use
to report bugs but no one checks. There must be a way to have a mail
be sent to octave-forge ML when anything changes on the bug tracker).

Carnë