> Which interface do you like better: the SourceForge bug tracker or > Jitterbug? I am leaning towards moving the bug database from > Jitterbug at python.org to SF. > > The advantages of moving to SF are: > > - bugs, patches, and CVS all managed by the same service > - bugs can be assigned to specific people for resolution > - cleaner interface for searching bugs > - bugs can be assigned a priority > > The primary disadvantage of SF is email support. Jitterbug can > receive comments about a bug via email and add them to its database. > The SF bug tracker does not. It works like the patch manager, > requiring you to use the Web interface to add more information. > > The SF bug tracker will send an email message every time a bug entry > is updated, but that's it. I would like to add that as far as I can tell we've only received a very small number of Jitterbug bug reports via email. In fact, the only one I can find in my email archives that originated via email was PR#110, which was in fact a followup! (We got plenty of followups via email, but that was because with Jitterbug it was actually *easier* to use email than the web I/F.) (Of course, this is not counting the bugs sent directly to guido@python.org -- these are in the hundreds.) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4