On 07/05/2011 03:39 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Perry Myers<pmyers(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> beekhof, stokes, zaneb, russellb, what do you guys want to do?
>
> Options are:
> 1) github issues w/ sync script
> 2) Community->Matahari with components broken out by functional area
> 3) Community->Matahari with a single component (matahari)
My vote is #2. I don't imagine that it's much more work than #3 and
could prove valuable at some point in the future if we want to do some
data mining on issue history. If there's something about bugzilla
that makes #2 a sizable amount more work for some reason, #3 is fine
too.
setting up #2 vs. #3 is trivial, it's just providing Red Hat's bz admins
with a list of components/descriptions/maintainer email's etc, etc.
We could always start with a single component (matahari) and expand to
add'l ones as necessary.
I've been down the road of #1 before and it was not pretty at
all. It
didn't scale well. I wrote a script similar to this one (2 different
issue tracking systems, though). It started out simple, but it got
really messy. The most significant problem I hit over time was
keeping the two different systems in sync. I eventually got
everything moved back into one system, eliminated the need for the
script, and life got much better.
ack on that