[xen-tools-discuss] Bug Tracking System / Commit access for others / Git or Hg?

[Jonathan Aquilina]

are you gonna be hosting this at home?

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Axel Beckert <abe at deuxchevaux.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 02:33:18PM +0200, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> > axel why not just use SF for git and use something like launchpad for the
> > bug tracker?
>
> Basically because I want to choose hosting and bugtracker based on
> needs and preferences not based on number of hosted projects,
> publicity or age of the hoster.
>
> I'm no big fan of Launchpad either, but IMHO it's far better than SF's
> bug tracker. I personally consider Debian's Bug Tracking System as a
> bug tracker as it should be, but that's no option for the project.
>
> Ideas for a bug tracker rumouring in my head:
>
> Self-Hosted:
>
> * flyspray (http://flyspray.org/)
> * Roundup (http://www.roundup-tracker.org/)
>
> Distributed within the VCS/SCM:
>
> * bugs-everywhere (http://bugseverywhere.org/)
> * ditrack (http://www.ditrack.org/)
>
> Hosted:
>
> * Launchpad
> * Bugtracker of the VCS/SCM hoster whatever they offer
>
> Any comments?
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 02:35:14PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> >   I have no preference, since I'll almost certainly not be
> >   commiting,
>
> (Hey, that's more than I expected! :-)
>
> >  but I find SF painful to navigate, slow, and clunky for issuing new
> >  releases.
>
> Yeah, I forgot "slow".
>
> >   I'd suggest hg + hgweb on a personal server + mailing list is
> >  sufficient,
>
> I must admit that the main reason for tending to hosted VCS/SCM
> hosting is that I have not much expererience with hosting repositories
> where arbitrary people have commit access.
>
> And those experiences I made (with Subversion) were always covered
> with Unix permission hassles. (And I do not like to create local Unix
> accounts on my server for every committer anyway.)
>
> So one of the reputable (i.e. not SF ;-) VCS/SCM hosters seems an easy
> and good solution for me there.
>
> >  but I guess github is the new sexy collaborative way to do things
> >  so that's probably as good and requires less dedicated personal
> >  resources.
>
> Well, for me it's less the sexy thing than more that I don't have to
> care much about administrating the hosting as well as that I in the
> meanwhile prefer git over hg.
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 02:41:34PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> >   In practice I guess we'll end up in a situation with:
> >
> >     * 1-5 people making commits, regularly.
> >     * 1-5 people declaring "new release".
> >     * 10-100 people downloading a release tarball.
> >     * 100-2000 people getting the package via Debian, Ubuntu, repos,
> >     etc.
>
> Full ack.
>
> >   On that basis I think whatever solution is picked should be one that
> >  requires the least work for the 1-5 people doing the
> >  commits/management.
>
> Yeah. If we'd have a developer ML I probably would have asked there
> instead of on the general discussion ML.
>
> >   Anyway I have no real stake so I'll bow out now, and leave either
> >  a consensus to develop or a firm decision to be made by Axel :)
>
> Thanks for the nice summaries. :-)
>
>                Regards, Axel
> --
> Axel Beckert - abe at deuxchevaux.org, abe at noone.org - http://noone.org/abe/
>
>


-- 
Jonathan Aquilina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sym.noone.org/pipermail/xen-tools-discuss/attachments/20100410/c5f32b99/attachment.htm>