Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 67281 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2004 17:15:41 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2004 17:15:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 83489 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2004 17:02:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 83406 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2004 17:02:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 83303 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2004 17:02:11 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [62.116.51.59] (HELO kerberos) (62.116.51.59) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:02:10 -0700 Received: From mail.at.efp.cc ([62.116.51.60]) by kerberos (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a); id 1089133315530; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:01:55 +0200 Received: from [194.107.80.43] (wrpo.at.intra.efp.cc [194.107.80.43]) by mail.at.efp.cc (8.11.3/8.11.3/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id i66H1sU03918 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:01:55 +0200 Message-ID: <40EADA97.5060508@apache.org> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:00:07 +0200 From: Reinhard Poetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: the use of bugzilla References: <40EA517B.1020508@vafer.org> In-Reply-To: <40EA517B.1020508@vafer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Torsten Curdt wrote: > Folks, > > please noone take this personal (reinhard, > please don't) no problem. I'm always interested in other opinions. > but am I the only one that > thinks that this use of bugzilla is kinda > awkward? > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25114 > > Having the Cocoon Forms "overview" in > bugzilla to gather the dependency list > is perfect IMHO. Definitely a good idea! > But the above entry is just a reference > to some documentation ...and it was > entered as such. Do we wanna have such > stuff in bugzilla? after Betrand's great presentation at the GetTogether last year we agreed that we try Bugzilla. At this time we had a list in our Wiki of all requirements which are prerequisits for a stable CocoonForms block and many people thought that this wasn't the best way. > > IMHO That's not the right place because > we could end up with a huge amount of bugs > just pointing to documentation. ...at least > let's mark such stuff as "WON'T FIX" or > something. Unfortunatly each entry is called "bug" but some are necessary points for our Roadmap. We just use Bugzilla to manage our Roadmap. I know it is far from being complete (e.g. Portal Engine, Blocks implementation are missing) and we as community don't use it in the way Bertrand suggested but it has been a first step. If this discussion doesn't lead to "we don't need it or don't want it this way" I will move all our roadmap entries into Bugzilla and will try keep them more up-to-date. -- Reinhard