[Asterisk-Dev] Re: Features requests on bugs.digium.com

[Tony Mountifield]

In article <4429D728-5A12-11D9-B70B-000A95C46612 at stevek.com>,
Steve Kann <stevek at stevek.com> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 29, 2004, at 9:50 PM, Brian West wrote:
> 
> > Ok I think all feature requests need to be gone from bugs.digium.com...

I strongly disagree.

> > if it has a patch it should be ok.  But feature requests I don't think
> > should be on the "bug" tracker.  It is a bug tracker right?

There's nothing wrong with the way its being used; if anything, it is the
name "bug" that is too narrow and restrictive.

> > So we can focus... what do you think... all raise your hands if the bug
> > tracker should only be for bugs and bugs with patches, or new features with
> > patches...?

No, I raise my hand for what Steve says below:

> I think the bug tracker should be for any proposed change to asterisk, 
> be it a new feature, enhancement, bugfix or whatever, whether or not it 
> has a patch attached.  It really ought to be the central location where 
> all projects are discussed and planned.

What he said.

> To be honest, I think you all are way too closed happy with the bug 
> tracker.

I agree with this.

> For example, there was a bug in there that steve davies opened for the 
> new jitterbuffer, but nobody posted to it for a few days (maybe even 
> weeks), and it got closed.   Closed should happen for things you don't 
> ever intend to do, not just things that you aren't working on RIGHT 
> NOW.

And I agree with this 100%. Of course Closed is also appropriate for
bug reports that have now been fixed, and features that are now
incorporated. Things that are still pending may have valid reasons
for going quiet for a while. By all means try to stir up activity
every so often if necessary, but don't be so trigger-happy on the
Close button.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony at softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony at mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org