Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes: >> On a related note, I thought it might >> make sense if we eventually move over to debbugs.gnu.org, as automake >> and libtool do. Though I haven't used it much, it apparently has a >> concept of "user tags" which could be used as categories. > > My preference goes the other way around: I do prefer the Savannah tracker > over debbugs. > > Rationale: > > 1) Generally speaking, web-based tools with a "comment"/discussion facility > are more efficient to use than email-based tools when the discussion remains > self-contained (not connected to other issues). > Only when issues are not well understood, or when an issue is composed of > several sub-issues, then email is better. Because only then there is a need > for mails to be forwarded to different mailing lists or for threads to be > split. > > 2) More in detail: When working with mail, a comment on lists.gnu.org and > in my mailbox are two different things, but they represent the same entity. > Therefore I need to spend time looking up the lists.gnu.org URL of a > particular > comment, as a reference. With debbugs the conversion is a bit simpler: > xx...@debbugs.gnu.org <--> > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=xxxxx > but it's still a conversion that's needed in many cases anyway. > > Sometimes also I don't have the mail in my mailbox, so I have to copy&paste > from the lists.gnu.org page. All this wastes time. > > Also, with debbugs you have to spend time setting up the "To" and "CC" list. > (Be careful not to omit the debbugs CC.) > > When working with mail, I have to move every mail to archive manually. So, > send a mail to change a status AND manage my mailbox accordingly. With a > web-based interface, I only have to change the status. > > Whereas in a web-based tracker, an issue is represented by one URL - there's > no need to convert it to/from an email address, and in most cases it's just > a hyperlink that I can click on. > > 3) The Savannah tracker has extensive per-project customizations. I fear > that with debbugs less per-project customizations are available. > > 4) Submitting a bug through a web-based tool is easier for most people than > through debbugs. IMO the barrier to giving feedback should be low. > > 5) debbugs has not many advocates: you can see in > https://debbugs.gnu.org/Packages.html > that aside from Jim, Paul, and Ludovic, it's mostly only Emacs, Automake, > and Libtool that use it. > > There are not many advantages of debbugs: > > 1) It has a full-text search engine.
2) It can be accessed through the Emacs interface: http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/debbugs.html It works pretty nicely and could address some of your concerns. I actually don't have strong opinion here. However, having seen quite a few people being confused that we have multiple places to report bugs (this list and the tracker) and that discussions often scatter across those places, I am wondering if we could unify them. Regards, -- Daiki Ueno
