Revert "rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn"

This reverts commit 95878586ec7611791f4001a4ee17abf943fae3c1.

1 files changed, 196 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn b/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..72bb3b77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/issue_tracking.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!toc]]
+
+
+# Savannah Trackers, Open Issues, debbugs
+
+There are the Savannah trackers.  Nobody really likes them.
+
+There is a proposal to add/move to <http://debbugs.gnu.org/>.  It can be
+operated by email, Debian people (developers and users) already know how to use
+it.
+
+There are the [[Open_Issues]] pages.  This is basically just free-form text
+enriched by some tags for grouping, editable via the web and through Git
+commit.  [[tschwinge]] added this to the set, and/but mostly is the sole user
+of it, even though casually there are a few other people contributing, and
+surely these pages do show up in web searches.  A more traditional system (like
+the Savannah trackers or the new debbugs) do have their advantages, too, so
+perhaps there's a niche for both these and the [[Open_Issues]].
+
+IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-31:
+
+    <tschwinge> So.  Savannah trackers vs. Open Issues vs. debbugs.  Any input?
+    <youpi> I like *both* open issues and debbugs
+    <youpi> open issues is good for exposing things that people may encounter
+      in other situations
+    <youpi> while debbugs is useful to actually work on a bug
+    <tschwinge> youpi: The advantage of debbugs being the email interface and
+      the well-known procedure, or something else?
+    <youpi> email interface, which nicely flows into a mailing list
+    <youpi> the savannah bug updates suffer from the additional layout
+    <tschwinge> How does one decide what to put in a debbug and what in an Open
+      Issue page?
+    <youpi> I'd say it's not exclusive at all
+    <youpi> like, a bug on a specific case can start as debbug, and as we
+      discover it's more general and will not be fixed immediately, get an open
+      issue page
+    <youpi> and conversely, when we know some shortcoming, start with an open
+      issue, and if some bugs are submitted which are actually due to it,
+      cross-link
+    <tschwinge> OK.
+    <youpi> (some general short coming I mean, like SIGINFO)
+    <tschwinge> And we would keep the current stuff in the trackers, and let
+      these ``get empty'' gradually (it'll be years...) ;-) or migrate the
+      remaining issues?
+    <tschwinge> What we can do is inhibiting the creation of new issues in the
+      trackers.
+    <youpi> I'd say move
+    <youpi> else they will be forgotten
+    <tschwinge> Hrm.
+    <antrik> actually, I considered creating a track-like plugin for ikiwiki,
+      as both the popularity of trac and the usefulness of open_issues show
+      that something wiki-like is actually more useful than a rigid traditional
+      bugtracker. but I'm not really willing to do the work, which is why I
+      didn't propose it before :-)
+    <antrik> err... trac-like
+    <youpi> yes, the wiki part is really useful to keep a good summary of the
+      issue
+    <tschwinge> antrik: Same for me.  I always hoped that someone would do
+      it...  :-)
+    <antrik> hehe
+    <tschwinge> antrik: But, as you surely know, this email parsing business is
+      just too ugly to do realiable, etc.
+    <antrik> youpi: my point is that adding a few additional bits (like a
+      comfortable tagging functionality, and some mail interface) could turn
+      into a full-blown tracker unifying the advantages of both... but as I
+      said, I'm not really willing to do the work :-)
+    <youpi> additional to open_issue you mean?
+    <youpi> yes, but like you say :)
+    <antrik> tschwinge: hm... seems to work well enough it debbugs
+    <youpi> debbugs just piles things
+    <youpi> and has a few commands
+    <youpi> you'd still need the web interface to edit the wiki part for
+      instance
+    <antrik> of course. that wouldn't change at all
+    <antrik> (except for adding a tagging GUI perhaps)
+    <antrik> (debbugs of course is not the only mail-operable bugtracking
+      system... there are a number of others -- and I heard rumors even
+      bugzilla grew a mail interface now...)
+    <youpi> antrik: a .mdwn diff should however be sent to the bug for
+      information
+    <youpi> atm, what happens sometimes is somebody saying something here on
+      #hurd, tschwinge turning that into an open_issue, and it does not show up
+      on the mailing list
+    <tschwinge> debbugs surely has the advantage that it is available (nearly)
+      right now.
+    <mattl> RT (request tracker) and ikiwiki play quite nicely together.
+    <tschwinge> mattl: You'Re using that at GNU/FSF/somewhere, right?
+    <mattl> you can close tickets from the wiki, and RT has a good command line
+      interface, email interface and web interface.
+    <mattl> tschwinge: yeah, we use RT and ikiwiki.
+    <mattl> RT for all FSF communications, and ikiwiki for internal organising.
+    <mattl> RT is not the easiest thing to set up, but works pretty well once
+      it's running.
+
+IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-10-19:
+
+    <antrik> tschwinge: BTW, what happened to the plan of killing help-hurd?
+    <antrik> (and possibly some other lists)
+    <tschwinge> antrik: That plan got stalled, obviously.  ;-)
+    <tschwinge> antrik: Now, I had proposed to use hurd-dev for development,
+      and turn bug-hurd into a debbugs bug reportling list.  That proposal has
+      not heard any supportive/unsupportive votes yet.
+    <tschwinge> hurd-devel.  That's the name.
+    <tschwinge> And turn off hurd-devel-readers.  And turn off help-hurd.
+    <tschwinge> And web-hurd.
+    <tschwinge> Keep l4-hurd.
+    <antrik> yeah, I haven't replied regarding bug-hurd vs. hurd-devel, as I'm
+      not quite sure myself
+    <antrik> on one hand, a dedicated bug list can be convenient; on the other
+      hand, this kind of splits always causes unnecessary overhead IMHO
+    <antrik> also, hurd-devel would obviously be *only* for development, so in
+      this scenario we actually would *need* to keep something like help-hurd
+      as well...
+    <antrik> I think I'd prefer the non-exclusive mode for debbugs... would
+      have to check again how it works exactly though :-)
+    <tschwinge> antrik: I quite liked that exclusive mode for it automatically
+      archives discussions grouped by threads for easy reference.
+    <tschwinge> antrik: And, the very most of bug-hurd emails are ``issues'' of
+      some sort: bug report, patch (that needs to be tracked until it is
+      applied, etc.
+    <antrik> tschwinge: exclusive mode would just mean that people would take
+      most of these discussion elsewhere, and the bug list would only be used
+      when someone explicitly wants something tracked as a bug...
+    <antrik> ideally, the bug tracker should only track things if explicitly
+      CCed. ideally, it should be possible to forward mails that have been
+      posted without CC, so they can be tracked retroactively...
+    <tschwinge> antrik: Why do you think that people would take discussions
+      elsewhere?
+    <antrik> because most people don't consider it useful to put every random
+      question or remark in an issue tracker
+    <antrik> IMHO it should be easy to turn messages into tickets/followups;
+      but it should not happen automatically
+    <tschwinge> What if people wouldn't even notice that their issues is kept
+      in a tracker, too?
+    <draculus> It might send a notification of some sort?
+    <antrik> I once posted to a list with RT in exclusive mode, and quite
+      frankly, I considered it rather strange to get a ticket created for my
+      message :-)
+    <antrik> tschwinge: that would only be useful if you always close tickets
+      for irrelevant or finished discussions, mark duplicates etc. -- and this
+      would have to happen silently, without noise for most other people
+      following the list...
+    <antrik> tschwinge: are you sure you want to do that?... :-)
+    <tschwinge> Yes.
+    <tschwinge> Because that way we don't lose so much stuff as we currently
+      do.
+    <antrik> well, the decision is up to you in that case...
+    <tschwinge> In fact, probably less than manually archiving the content, as
+      I'm doing now, partially.
+    <tschwinge> antrik: Well, I'm just out for getting some comments.
+    <antrik> it would further reduce our bus factor though :-(
+    <tschwinge> That already is low enough that it doesn't matter anymore...
+    <tschwinge> antrik: So, to sum up, you'd use non-exclusive mode, but are
+      not actively opposed to exclusive mode as long as it doesn't too much
+      disturbe any procedures you're currently using?
+    <antrik> well, if it happens mostly in the background, I don't see why
+      anyone should be opposed...
+    <antrik> just make sure people posting to the list don't get a "ticket
+      created" message in response :-)
+    <antrik> it would make it harder though for people to explicitly track
+      issue they are interested in I fear
+    <antrik> when using non-exclusive mode, and people explicitly CC things to
+      the tracker, which sends a notice about a ticket being created, everyone
+      sees that and can act accordingly. if everything happens in the
+      background, few people would even think about it...
+    <antrik> so non-exclusive mode probably needs more effort to keep in order;
+      but it would be more useful too...
+    <tschwinge> Well, but with exclusive mode, people don't lose anything
+      compared to the current state, do they?
+    <antrik> tschwinge: probably not compared to the current state... but
+      possibly compared to a well-used non-exclusive mode :-)
+
+
+# Further Systems
+
+  * ikiwiki
+
+      * <http://ikiwiki.info/tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki/>
+
+      * <http://ikiwiki.info/todo/Better_bug_tracking_support/>
+
+      * <http://ikiwiki.info/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies/>
+
+      * <http://ikiwiki.info/todo/Updated_bug_tracking_example/>
+
+  * <http://bugseverywhere.org/>