Independent Fedora bug tracker

[Basil Mohamed Gohar]

On 04/22/2009 11:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Basil Mohamed Gohar<abu_hurayrah at hidayahonline.org>  writes:
>    
>> And now, on to the advantages as I see them:
>>      
>
> It would be polite of you to at least acknowledge that there might
> be DISadvantages.
>
> The main one from my personal perspective is that I don't need an
> extra bug tracker in my daily work.  Right now, Red Hat's bugzilla
> is all that I need to look at to handle both RHEL and Fedora
> responsibilities.  If there are two trackers involved, one or the
> other is going to get looked at less frequently, and given who pays
> me I'm afraid Fedora is going to lose out.
>
> Now the above argument means nothing much if you just consider my
> personal effort compared to all of Fedora, but when you consider that
> it applies to every Red Hat engineer I think it becomes significant.
> There are enough Red Hat people involved in Fedora that penalizing
> all of us will put a noticeable drag on the project.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
>    
Those are some really good points.  In the "FOSS needs a central 
bugtracker" thread, there's an idea of issue trackers communicating with 
each other.  Theoretically, this would alleviate some, if not all, of 
the work load of someone having to check two issue trackers, because if 
one can be consider upstream to the other, then the data can flow with 
the work only needing to be done in one place.

I definitely acknowledge disadvantages, but I am also definitely arguing 
this from a community standpoint.  Having said that, I did not want to 
minimize what Red Hat contributes to Fedora.  And having said *that*, 
Red Hat will benefit from anything that benefits Fedora.  Directly.

I believe a solution exists where Fedora's independence in terms of 
issue tracking is not a burden on Red Hat's contributors to it.  But I 
don't know that I have the experience to say what that solution is just 
yet.  Hence, this thread for brainstorming.  ;)