Unifying bugtracking

[Andy Hamberger]

Hey Colin, Stefano ...


> From what I can gather of of the goals is to create a system whereby
different bugtrackers can communicate automagically.

True stuff, yet so far from where we are at.

On 3/9/08, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack at debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 11:12:33AM +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>  > I think this list is a good place to highlight this project:
>  > http://code.google.com/p/baetle/
>  >
>  > From what I can gather of of the goals is to create a system whereby
>  > different bugtrackers can communicate automagically. This would allow
>  > e.g. a bug reported in distro X can be connected to an upstream bug.
>
>

Totaly good idea ..... Some underlying similarity can be found and
named between disparate solutions to the same problem, surely ... we
all know what it means to maintain our own version of the already
maintained source. And we all know what the benefits would be on
disparate kernels.

> In Debian we have something similar which has been house made. It is
>  called bts-link, http://bts-link.alioth.debian.org/ . It does indeed
>  help a lot. I don't know how much you are in touch with the author of
>  baetle, and I haven't actually looked at it, but it might be worth
>  getting in touch the respective authors.
>

Yeah so that ultimately a patch overal gets approved and integrated
within the cross contribution and distribution. That way we all feed
things reaaonably into the main maintainers stream.

BTS --> generic communication --> naming scheme --> source
repositories --> maintainer for approval.

Maybe even an api to bind CVS, SVN and the other source reps would be
nice, but maybe no one has spare time for some specing and development
... we are all busy maintaining diversity .... ? Even though diversity
is actually the key to what we all believe in ...... tough one ....

Possible, atm?

Andy