[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FOSS needs a central bug tracker

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa gmail com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Mark <markg85 gmail com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM, John5342 <john5342 googlemail com> wrote:
>>> 2009/4/21 Callum Lerwick <seg haxxed com>:
>>>> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 03:04 +0100, John5342 wrote:
>>>>> What i would be interested in though is some kind of standardised api
>>>>> implemented in all the major bug trackers so other things can be
>>>>> easily implemented on top of them such as semi automated up-streaming
>>>>> of bugs. Making use of something like OpenID would reduce the multiple
>>>>> login issue.
>>>> +1 the Open Source world fixing the Single Sign-on problem would go a
>>>> long way towards solving much irritation. I suppose it's a matter of
>>>> getting everyone to support OpenID...
>>> The good news with getting everyone to support openid is that most
>>> people use some version of one of a limited number of bug tracker
>>> systems such as bugzilla or trac. A quick google shows there is
>>> already some work being done on making bugzilla support openid. If a
>>> few more trackers work on it then we will be well on our way towards
>>> convincing individual projects to use it.
>> OpenID is indeed a solution to one of the problems (multiple bug
>> reporting accounts). But that would only work if:
>> 1. All bug trackers support OpenID
>> 2. all currently using a bug tracker update to a version that uses OpenID.
> What exactly is the intended point of having a single IMS? Lets assume
> that all IMSs support OpenID, what is the point of a single issue
> tracker then?

For all your questions: read the first post.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Basil Mohamed Gohar
<abu_hurayrah hidayahonline org> wrote:
> On 04/22/2009 04:58 AM, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 22:37 +0200, Mark wrote:
>>> I'm also playing a bit with the idea that there is one central bug
>>> tracking system with ALL (ideally) foss projects in it and that place
>>> is the main and upstream place(that's the general idea you all know by
>>> now).
>> No. This is not desirable. Forget it, it's never going to happen. Clear
>> your mind. Think git, not CVS. Think distributed bug tracking.
>> Interoperation, not consolidation.
>> And there's the basic fact that no one wants a single point of failure.
>> What if the One Bug Tracker To Rule Them All goes down? The entire Open
>> Source world screeches to a halt? Who is everyone going to trust to run
>> this thing? What if the OBTTRTA gets hacked?
>> The beauty of Open Source is that people are *not* forced to work
>> together.
> I think the same argument could be made to apply to FreeNode for IRC, and
> yet, it seems to be working out just fine for the vast majority of FOSS
> projects.  So, the "One X to Y them all" concept can theoretically work for
> some aspects of FOSS development.  However, everyone's (almost, at least)
> are already using FreeNode, so we don't really have to convince anyone.
> Having said that, I think you're on to something about the git vs. CVS
> concept - distributed bug tracking.  There's already something minorly akin
> to this with feature of remote bugs in Bugzilla, such as in Ubuntu's
> launchpad or Gnome's Bugzilla.  Maybe it's not single-sign on that's needed,
> but a standard interface for bugs across different implementations, such
> that data can be gleaned from them via web services.  Yeah, doesn't sound so
> yummy, but it's something that can be implemented gradually, as well.

Ehm.. this is not a new piece of software that's going to compete with
existing ones.
It's a piece that will join all existing ones, offer a database where
the existing ones "hook" in, without losing the existing ones (or
that's what would be best if you ask me).

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]