From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Bug tracker choices for Emacs. Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:36:03 -0400 Message-ID: <87ws5ij2rw.fsf@canonical.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1249446987 11495 80.91.229.12 (5 Aug 2009 04:36:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 04:36:27 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 05 06:36:16 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MYYEZ-0000Ge-Fv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:36:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43044 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MYYEY-0006ur-KK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:36:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MYYEU-0006tq-QK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:36:10 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MYYER-0006r1-Rd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:36:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51906 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MYYER-0006qW-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:36:07 -0400 Original-Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:40890) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MYYEQ-0006en-JR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:36:07 -0400 Original-Received: from hutte.canonical.com ([91.189.90.181]) by adelie.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1MYYEQ-0003Bl-1f for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:36:06 +0100 Original-Received: from cpe-68-175-28-8.nyc.res.rr.com ([68.175.28.8] helo=kfogel-work) by hutte.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYYEP-0004pE-U4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:36:06 +0100 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:113703 Archived-At: This may be a controversial post. I'll start out by saying that it is is *no* way a criticism of Don Armstrong, whose work in setting up emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com I appreciate very much, as do many others. When we chose a bug tracker, the criteria were: it must be free software, and must be manipulable by email. Debbugs was the only one that fit the bill, IIRC -- there was some consideration of RT, but it turned out not all of RT's functionality was available by email. Since then, another one has appeared: the Launchpad bug tracker, https://bugs.launchpad.net/. It is now free software under the GNU Affero General Public License, along with the rest of Launchpad. It can be completely operated by email: https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/EmailInterface (I know developers who interact with it solely by email.) Also, it has APIs: https://help.launchpad.net/API https://help.launchpad.net/API/Uses The APIs can be driven by using the 'launchpadlib' Python library, or (less commonly) through direct "ReST"-style calls. So, are we happy with debbugs? Here are problems that I've found discourage me from using debbugs: - Not really operable via the web -- just read-only operations. This is huge. - Does not do automatic duplicate-finding when a new bug is submitted. Launchpad bugs does, and it's a real gift. (Actually, from reading the documentation, it's not clear to me how to handle duplicates in debbugs at all -- there doesn't seem to be a simple way to say "Close bug #Y because it's a duplicate of #X". And the mere fact that one has to read the documentation is already a disadvantage.) - Interface can be a bit unintuitive ("Toggle useless messages", for example; or consider the number of choices one must make before doing a simple search). - A bit Debian-centric. See the long list of checkboxes for distributions in the search form on the front page, for example. When we chose debbugs, it was effectively the only choice we had. It certainly gets the job done. But I'd like to know if anyone else is tempted by the thought of switching our bug tracking to Launchpad. Launchpad already has code for converting debbugs to Launchpad bugs, and we could easily leave forwarding pointers. I don't think conversion costs would be a huge problem, if we chose to convert. Thoughts? Full disclosure: I work for Canonical (obvious from my email address), the company that runs Launchpad. -Karl