[GRASS5] Re: BTS, what was that?

Markus Neteler neteler at itc.it
Tue Feb 7 16:44:51 EST 2006

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:53:41AM +0200, M?ris Narti?s wrote:
> Hi,
> 2006/2/1, Markus Neteler <neteler at itc.it>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > note that the bugtracker is hosted at Intevation. Bernhard
> > proposed to implement a new bugtracker, but I don't know if
> > he started to do so.
> Any reason why it cannot be hosted at grass.itc.it site?

No technical reason at least.
It's historically hosted at intevation.de.
Now, in the light of the new foundation there will probably be
the option/request to move code management to a centralized
foundation infrastructure.
Of course an agreement on which bug tracking system to use is
pending. This will be discussed in the near future.

> > > I also
> > > hope to see some more useful bug tracking system in future. Migration
> > > from old mailinglists to new (grass-user,grass-dev) could be a good
> > > time to change other things as well.
> >
> > What do you mean here? Please explain.
> >
> > Markus
> I refer to "[GRASS5] Rename of development mailing list?"
> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2006-January/020655.html
> If there is new server, new names for mailing lists, adding yet
> another important change - bugzilla - would be right in time - one BIG
> change, one announcement. People would more easy adapt such changes -
> "Oh, look, they have new mailing lists, bug tracking system and new
> stable version..." All at once - so nobody could miss that.

Good point.
I have to check with the foundation ideas - we don't want too many
changes in case the GRASS community intends to use the foundation
infrastructure (once provided).
However, I suggest to move the user list to grass.itc.it as soon as

> Radim:
> >Do you mean to create patch file and send it to bugtracker before commit.
> >That is too much work in my opinion.
> I agree, but IMHO just a notification from bugzilla when bug is closed
> with fix in CVS could be enough to keep track on fixes for stable
> versions.

Maybe Intevation could implement this into the existing RT?

> Just another 2 c:
> bugzilla is useful to tracking code submissions by developers w/o
> write access to CVS. This way works Gentoo bugzilla. New ebuild first
> is submitted as bug, then users/developers interested in it make tests
> etc. and when it looks OK, bug gets closed as ebuild moves to portage.
> I hope this time everybody will understand what I was trying to say :)

Yes, understood now. This sounds reasonable to me.


More information about the grass-dev mailing list