httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>
Subject Re: 2.0 bug reports
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:06:22 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 10:31:53PM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > > I know that everyone normally ignores them anyway, so it doesn't matter,
> > > but 2.0 isn't going to go far if we don't fix the (completely expected and
> > > normal) issues with it, and that is pretty hard to do without a bugdb...
> > >
> > > No, gnats wasn't great but it worked.  Now it doesn't.  That is a HUGE

I just tested GNATs again; submitted a bug, checked that it was in,
checked that
I got email and closed it again. Now what is broken ? (Apart from the DB being
very large; something locus.apache.org seems to handle a lot better than
hyperreal ?)

> 1. people aren't using it.

	It is only up two days.

> 2. it isn't documented how to use it.

	It is as documented as GNATs.

> 3. it isn't tested, and was just thrown together at the last minute

	Very true and not so True. 

	The bugzilla for the httpd is an an exact copy of the bugzilla as used 
	for the Jakarta and XML project (except for some details; e.g. priority
	is no longer P1 to P4, but the 'old' list from gnats).

	On the other hand, there seemed a strong drift away from
	GNATs, and to keep things in line with the other project's which now
	all use bugzilla. Which is not my choise. However the bugzilla for
	the httpd is an an exact copy of the bugzilla as used for the
	Jakarta and XML project (except for some details; e.g. priority
	is no longer P1 to P4, but the 'old' list from gnats).

> 4. it is a pain to submit reports

	Just as hard as gnats

> 5. it doesn't send out email (as far as I can see...) when bugs are
> entered, etc. which is CRITICAL.  

	I believe it does. Let's double check here.

> It doesn't appear to allow updates via email, which is critical.

	Ack.

> 6. it lets anyone do whatever they want with any bugs, as far as I can
> see.  I don't think it makes sense to let anyone come in and muck with
> bugs however they want to.
> 7. it is silly to have two different bug systems that everyone has to deal
> with.

	Very true. In my personal opinion GNATs is (and was) the way to
	go.
 
> And we still have the problem for 1.3 that gnats doesn't work.  It seems
> to be pretty silly to me to switch to new software for 2.0 bugs because
> people who can do something don't care about 1.3 bugs and don't care to
> actually make the existing bugdb work again since they never use it.

	I am still trying to find out _what_ is wrong with it. Where does
	it crap out ? Or is just the index corrupt for some reason and do
	some PR's not parse ?
 
	Dw.

Mime
View raw message