[copyleft-next] Why was BE rejected as an issue tracker for copyleft-next?

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Sun Feb 10 05:25:17 UTC 2013


On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 08:49:18AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote at 22:40 (EST) on Thursday:
> > ISTR something about [BugsEverywhere] was considered suboptimal.
> 
> Could you investigate BugsEverywhere and either approve it as a solution
> (in which case, I could help you set it up) or state clear reasons for
> objecting it?

I have now investigated Bugs Everywhere. Unfortunately I object to
it. This saddens me because it seems to come *very* close to what I
have in mind for a perfect issue tracker.

My objections are that it appears to be poorly-documented and
poorly-maintained to the point where the annoyance of using it will
greatly exceed the benefits, and where the likelihood of future
versions of it or its dependencies causing everything to break seems
unusually high.

This is too bad, because I don't think there's anything better.

> Note that IMO "suboptimal" isn't a reason not to use something.  GitHub
> is suboptimal in many ways (and not only the proprietary reasons of my
> concern).  So is a mailing list.  I hope you won't let the best be the
> enemy of the good.

The problem is that Bugs Everywhere doesn't even meet my standard of
'good'.[1] If I were sufficiently skilled at Python or *wanted* to be
(I *currently* don't), I'd consider helping out with or forking the
project. 

 - RF

[1] I tried using both the version packaged in Fedora 17 and the more
recent verson available from the project's Gitorious repository.





More information about the copyleft-next mailing list