Re: Bug tracking

We currently have a mix of bugs filed in GitHub and the W3C Tracker, as
well as threads that never have bugs associated with them. I agree
wholeheartedly that we should clean that up.

Migrating to Bugzilla is fine with me. Doing everything on GitHub is fine
too.

Tracker is (IMO) not a particularly wonderful issue tracker, but it's
integrated with IRC and the list, and there might be other process-related
reasons to use it.

Brad, WDYT? Would you be happy using Bugzilla rather than Tracker?

-mike

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> I often lose track of what bugs have been addressed in this group and
> which are still outstanding. The way we address this in the WHATWG is
> that every specification either uses Bugzilla or GitHub in addition to
> mailing list discussion to track important bugs. The open bugs and a
> way of filing a new bug are clearly linked from the specification in a
> "Participate" box at the top. There's also a script that helps you
> filing a bug based on selection of some text.
>
> Then when a bug is resolved the commit is linked from the bug, and the
> commit itself links to the bug. This helps reviewers as they can
> immediately see whether their bug was addressed as desired and can
> reopen the discussion if not. Reviewers have a single point to track
> and cannot be forgotten if a decision was made as part of a meeting
> since their bug still needs to be resolved. This also makes it easier
> for those trying to figure out why something changed in the past
> (specification archeology is a popular pastime of some).
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>