Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] Grouper issue tracking

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] Grouper issue tracking

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Will Norris <>
  • To: "blair christensen." <>
  • Cc: grouper-dev <>
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Grouper issue tracking
  • Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:58:06 -0700

The biggest problem I see with Google Code's issue tracking is the lack of a defined vocabulary for "labels" (of course, one could also argue that this is one if its biggest features). While the looseness of the labels definitely allows for great flexibility, there needs to be some kind of common vocabulary which other issues tracking systems (bugzilla, jira, et al) provide. Most new users submitting tickets will probably not know that they need to label their issue with "Milestone:API_1.0.1", whereas this would be rather obvious in something like bugzilla. I think you'll spend quite a bit of time fixing the labels of issues to fit into the vocabulary that you have chosen for the project.

I think we're a long way off from having to worry about search for tickets... there's a whopping three active tickets for Grouper right now in bugzilla.


On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:52 AM, blair christensen. wrote:

For the past week I've been experimenting with using Google Code as a
replacement issue tracker for Grouper. I've set up a test
[i2mi-grouper project][0] which I have been using.

As anyone who has looked at Grouper's Bugzilla instance lately can
tell I haven't been paying much (well, any) attention to it. Far too
often Bugzilla felt like more of a hindrance while working through
reported issues, its searching and categorizing capabilities and
restrictions always frustrated me, and in most cases I would spend
more time dealing with Bugzilla than with the actual reported issues.

Now, Google Code is far from perfect but even with its current flaws
it has been more enjoyable to work with than Bugzilla. Of course, if
Google fixes the issues I've reported it will be a lot more usable.

I think it is "good enough" at this point but I would be curious to
know how others felt about it - and switching to it.

[0]: <>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page