On Sep 22, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Graham Percival writes: > >> Yep. I'd describe it as three websites >> It's a royal mess. > > There is some value in having issues.google.com than only a bugs mailing > list, but there is indeed also a cost. > >> Any ideas on how to deal with people who only want to deal with >> email? > > We may want to have a look at the new http://bugs.gnu.org , > an implementation of debbugs. Debbugs works great with > just email. I would like to know if it has git support, > you really want to link your git commits (Fixed: #1233.) > to the debbugs database and vice versa. > >> My vague recollection is that the google project tools have easy >> support for email as long as everybody is using google accounts. > > What does this support look like? It would be pretty weird to > require this, otoh, if it would really fix our "royal mess", > we may want to consider it. > > Jan >
This discussion is a bit out of my league, but because it is out of my league, I've been asking myself the question that I ask myself when confronted with something out of my league: namely, has anyone done a survey of what other projects use and how it works for them? I've seen a few e-mails to the tune of "Project X uses tool Y," but it'd be great to know concretely the pros and cons of all of these options from projects that, like LilyPond, have stuck with one of these bug tracking and patch review systems for a while and can give a good perspective of its pluses and minuses. I don't know anything about open source projects outside of LilyPond, but could someone branched into other GNU projects perhaps collect this sort of info? Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
