"Dipl. Ing. Sergey Brester" <serg.brester@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Well, a bug-tracker had some clear benefits:
>
> 1. it has controlling and statistic mechanisms like a road-map,
> milestones etc;
>
> 2. the issues get a priority (so one is able to select bugs with high
> precedence);
>
> 3. they can be labeled or even characterized with other metrics to
> signal seriousness of the issue or
> to emphasize them in order to be flashy in the road-map.
>
> 4. the issues are bound to the participating contributors (reporter,
> devs, tester, etc), so for example there are reports like "open issues
> belonging to me", which could also help to organize work a bit
> ("remember" them).
>
> 5. Transparency of the representation of issue or some lists is not to
> compare with a thread in a mailing list at all.
What is curious in the above list is that their benefits are heavily
dependent on people actually curating them. No issue tracker
automatically makes random issues "prioritized", no issue tracker
automatically closes a stale and/or irrelevant issue. And without
curation, it tends to become pile of useless reports.
> I could continue yet, but unsure the arguments will be heard or
> welcome ...
I actually think people already _know_ the benefit of having well
curated tracker, and suspect that what needs to be stressed is *not*
the "arguments" for having one. It just is that those who bring it
up on this list never seem to be interested in maintaining the
tracker in useful state, and assumes that issue curation magically
happens for free, and that is probably it never materializes.
It would be great if you are volunteering to be one of the issue
managers, of course. FWIW, I think somebody (jrnieder?) already
runs a tracker for us. I do not know how much community
participation the instance gets to to keep it relevant.
