Re: Why Is There No Bug Tracker And Why Are Patches Sent Instead Of Pull Requests
- From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
- Date
- Mar 2, 2012, 14:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4F50D6C6.3080909@op5.se>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vsjhrfprz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 03/02/2012 08:03 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
... a very concise and exact response.
Show 9 quoted lines
> > In any case, any solution that demands more things to be done by people > near the core developers than they currently are already doing will make > things worse by exacerbating the problem that comes from a bottleneck in > the process. I do not think your "The maintainer triages and assigns > issues to other developers" or "The assigned developer marks the issue as > 'done' after fixing it" will fly very well, regardless of the use of any > bug tracker. >
It works very well when there's the incentive of roof over one's head and food on one's table to take care of the assigned issues. However, nothing stops a git developer from saying "sorry, I'm busy" when being assigned really, really boring tasks that they really don't feel like doing.
One thing I could see a bugtracker would be good for is to get companies that use git to vote on issues or features using real money. Developers can then pick up the issue and do something with them.
Apart from that, I doubt there's much incentive for the people who do any of the work to pick up issues nobody cares about. The number of bugs falling through the cracks is too small to go through a lot of work just to keep track of them, and the ones that do are ones that are primarily of the bikeshedding variant or such weird corner-cases that they don't happen in 99.999% of all use-cases git was designed for and is bid to handle.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war on peace.