On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 10:06:28PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Your plan would afaics mean that we invest further into a software > abandoned by its upstream and already becoming more and more of a > maintenance burden. That investment would also further increase our > dependency on that software by establishing workflows that rely on it. > Is that really wise at this point? Wouldn't it be better to spend that > time and effort to build something better that is more future proof? Unfortunately, there's no such thing. ;) And maybe we'll even help tip the course of history into the other direction -- Red Hat uses bugzilla, and so does OpenSuse, so there's a pretty good core of well-funded companies that would be in a position to help keep bugzilla going if it's looking like the platform is still alive. Or that could all be wishful thinking and they'll all migrate to Jira or something equally horrible, who knows. I'm hoping that by keeping the bulk of this exchange relying on established decentralized end-to-end messaging, we won't be painting ourselves into the corner quite as much as with a tool that requires all interaction to happen strictly via the web interface. The alternative is to hire the folks behind patchwork to write "bugwork". -K
