OK, thanks for these informations. >From a user perspective, having this volume of devel mails flooding all the bugs mail is very annoying. And following the status of a bug and the history of this bug is very hard too. The bugzilla approach is really useful for the user who is reporting bugs: all the bugs are tracked, you can see if a bug has been already filled and put some additional informations if necessary. I will have a look at the JIRA thing. YC ----- Mail original ----- De: "Konstantin Khomoutov" <flatworm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> À: "ycollette nospam" <ycollette.nospam@xxxxxxx> Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Envoyé: Vendredi 15 Novembre 2013 10:51:32 Objet: Re: Add a bugzilla website On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:40:47 +0100 (CET) ycollette.nospam@xxxxxxx wrote: > And the conclusion is ? No bugzilla tool installed because somebody > want to build a gitbased bugzilla thing ? Well, no, the real answer is that for those who actually write code and apply patches, an e-mail based workflow is simpler: Git has tools to apply patches right from Unix mailboxes, so one is able to just save a thread with the final patch series to a file and apply it. Some people also prefer discussing patches inline -- in the same e-mail thread the patch series being discussed had started. I'm aware of at least one big project sporting the same approach to handling bugs -- PostgreSQL. But there was an announcement that an experimental JIRA instance has been set up for Git [1]. I'm not sure what its current status is, but you could look at it. Also Git's mirror on github [2] supposedly provides for pull requests. Again, not sure whether/how they're handled. 1. http://git-blame.blogspot.ru/2012/02/experimental-git-bug-tracker.html 2. https://github.com/git/git/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html