On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:16:38PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > In terms of improving the hosting infrastructure, this would surely be a > step forward, but the problem with "collaboration" is not that the > tools are missing, it's that people are unwilling to use any tools for > issue tracking, etc. This is in fact a near-universal problem. If you > look at sourceforge, very few projects actually use any of the > "collaboration" tools. If you want to get the project to do something, > you still have to use email and CVS. And with those projects (not > necessarily on sourceforge) that have a sophisticated bug tracking > structure, the sheer number of filed bugs is so large and irregular in > quality that the bugs are in fact meaningless. (Oddly enough, the > projects I have in mind here do *not* use a full-service collaboration > tool, just a bug tracker. Make of that what you will.) So yes, I > think this is a reasonable plan, just don't expect "collaboration" to > suddenly appear out of nowhere.
One thing that helps a lot in my experience is the ability to manage bug reports. On gborg, for instance, I'm stuck with several dozen duplicates from a time there were technical problems with the site; lots of "semantic garbage" in the form of people making silly assumptions, not reading earlier bug reports, or asking generic C++ questions; requests for features that are already there; support requests and other irrelevant issues; and multiple reports covering the same underlying problem. If I could merge, delete, categorize & group these requests the list would be a lot easier to manage. Jeroen ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
