From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-08 06:56:57
Daniel Frey wrote:
> The trackers are IMHO a problem because they require a lot of work. The
> current state shows that it is not maintained well, e.g. there are open
> bugs which are long closed in CVS, see #451535. Sure we could do better
> in theory, but is it worth it? Why not use regression tests to track
> bugs? AFAICS people pay a lot of attention to the regression tests and
> the whole systems work pretty well.
> Also, I hope that it could make the release manager's work easier to
> have fewer sources to track :)
> OK, what do others think? Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with
> the SF-trackers?
The tracker is worse than useless if it is not actively supported.
Boost users who do not subscribe to the lists will submit bugs through
them, and wonder why they don't get the feedback they expect. If bugs
are never marked closed, as you say, it looks bad on the project.
OTOH, regression tests are only good for the conditions they test for.
If we expand the tests to cover every potential bug, I suspect we will
not have enough computers to run them on. Bug trackers let you record
and deal with bugs that are not part of the main-line regression suite.
As you can see, I am neither for-nor-agianst the bug tracker. But I do
think we need to either adopt it, or disable it somehow. It should not
be left as some half-way house.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk