Randy McMurchy wrote:
1. Time-wise I feel that Trac and Bugzilla are about the same. I
don't see any real appreciable difference (or speed-up which was
claimed) using either one. There are still tremendous (sometimes 20
to 30 second) delays trying to move from one screen to another. I
am disappointed here.
As was noted, this can possibly be the route to belg, and not belg
itself. It is definitely something that we should endeavor to fix if we can.
2. Bugzilla, functionality-wise seems to be better.
a) I liked the field in BZ that was available for a relevant URL.
Agreed. I miss that too. Although trac makes up for it (IMO) by being
better able to include links to everything everywhere.
[snip]
c) I would prefer the default to be a "task" rather than a
"defect" when entering a new bug in Trac. Most bugs (in BLFS,
anyway) are version increments, which should not be classified
as defects.
Easily changed. You have admin access for BLFS - change it if you like,
and if the other BLFS devs agree.
d) I don't like how all the bugs moved from BZ to Trac that are
for version increments are marked "defect"
So change them. FWIW, the import script used to import from bugzilla
isn't really part of Trac. It is a contributed piece of code.
e) I don't like (and this is the reason I created this message, as
I feel this is a large shortcoming) that you cannot reference
bug numbers when marking duplicates, and you cannot reference
bug number dependencies (I realize it could be done manually,
however, I liked the automated system in BZ.
I do wish there were better dependency tracking. Referencing the bug
numbers (duplicate or dependencies) is just a matter of including the
relevant number in the comment where you mark it as duplicate.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
