On 9/1/19 6:41 PM, Alexis Murzeau wrote:
> I find both arguments quite valid:
> - The BTS is more future proof, stuff on it will probably last longer
> than whatever is on Salsa currently.
Why? There is no real reason to remove MRs or bug reports in salsa after
some time.
> There are bugs in the BTS still
> available to readers from 1996 like #4000.
>
> But 20 years old bugs might not be as useful to keep as not so old bugs.
>
> I don't know all uses cases that one can have when searching and reading
> old bugs, one might be to have an answer to "why program X is doing Y".
That raises one question: is salsa being indexed by crawlers, at least
bug reports/MRs?
> [....]
> I'm myself ok with the BTS but I have to send sometimes more than one
> mail to control@b.d.o before having the right action on the bug done
> (mistyped command, wrong syntax, bad bug status when merging bugs, ...).
> So it is not as easy to use as a graphical interface.
> Maybe I should just use command line tools instead of plain mails :)
Exactly. It is unnecessary hard for our uses to use the interface.
>From my own experience: since I have my bigger packages (like
open-vm-tools, gpsd...) on github/salsa, I've started to get *a lot*
more pull requests than I got patches in the bts on all of my packages.
Also it is much more easy to review pull/merge requests - I even do it
on the mobile phone sometimes - and merge them if possible.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
