"Brent Vukmer" <bvukmer at blackboard.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Incidentally, there are bug databases floating around 
> > already.  Probably the best thing for us to do would be to 
> > set up an existing program on bugs.squeakfoundation.org and 
> > just use it, customizing it over time for our purposes.
> > 
> 
> Good point.  I agree that a mailing list is probably not the best
> back-end for a bug database ( or any database, really :) ).

Oh, yeah, I agree.  The BFA we have is wonderful, and much better than
what we had!



> 
> > In that case, by all means don't let me stop you.  
> > :)  You still might want to browse around at what other 
> > systems do, though.
> > 
> 
> True.  Do you have specific features in mind?


Yes.  But, I remember others having thought it through better than me,
last it came through the list.  Hmm...  I can't find it now.  Off the
top of my head:

	1. Yes, have a per-package bug log.  But probably we should allow bug
"channels" (as someone called them) that aren't tied to packages, too.

	2. Have a way for followup emails regarding the bug, to get logged into
the bug tracker (we have this).

	3. Be able to tag the severity of bugs.  If we really start using the
system, then there will be gobs of bugs in the logs I bet.  :)  normal,
severe, and wishlist would be a good set to start with.

	4. Flesh out the status tag, e.g. open, closed, and whatever else. 
Though, we have a decent shot at this already.

	5. Allow for merging and splitting bug reports.


Hmm, maybe this isn't so bad to implement for ourselves after all.


Lex