On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:01:43 -0500 C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Philipp Überbacher > <hollunder@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Excerpts from Dieter Plaetinck's message of 2010-09-08 21:47:40 > > +0200: > >> anyone knows this? http://bugseverywhere.org/be/show/HomePage > >> > >> the concept looks great, although i don't know anything about the > >> implementation/usage. > >> > >> other then the advantages they list, I think something like this > >> can be useful for downstream<->upstream communication. (ie someone > >> reports a bug in the distro bugseverywhere, they can then more > >> easily forward the bugs to upstream when needed) > >> i blogged about stuff like this @ > >> http://dieter.plaetinck.be/what_the_open_source_community_can_learn_from_devops > >> if anyone cares. > >> > >> Dieter > > > > Hi Dieter, > > just another distributed bug tracking system: > > http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/tip/www/index.wiki > > > > It's also a DVCS and whatnot. What I wonder about is how it > > compares to git when it comes to the DVCS part. > > i don't anything too valuable to add, except that i too have written > about this concept, notably here: > > Distrib -e "Arch(org|code|pkgs|aur|forum|wiki|bugs|.*)?" -- thoughts > https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=709188 some good ideas. i replied at your thread. i think bugseverywhere is more interesting then the other solutions because I think: 1) git > *, or at least git > fossil 2) tracking bugs as close as possible to the actual code (ie. along with the branch) makes most sense. I think the fundamentals are right and the current "deficiencies" seem to come down to lack of some wrapper scripts and maybe a nice (web)interface. At least that's what I gathered from http://lwn.net/Articles/281849/, which is more then 2 years old. They seem to have a basic web interace now, for instance. Dieter