Am 06.08.2004 um 11:49 schrieb Frank Shearar:
>>
>
> I don't really understand this. If we use BFAV for reviews, but not 
> for bugs, what do we review? Only fixes/enhancements?

We only review fixes. Not bugs. There is e.g. no way that BFAV can 
anwer questions like:

  Are there any severe bugs left that should be fixed for release 3.7?
  What are the bugs that have been reported with 3.6 and fixed in 3.7?

There are lots of BUG posting that might have seen a fix, or maybe not. 
I don't know.

> Or do you propose that Mantis keeps track of bug state? So I submit a 
> bug to the list, BFAV picks it up (as per usual) and I submit a bug 
> report to Mantis? And then when Joe Foo fixes it, he changes the 
> status of the bug report to "feedback" and Doug, when he harvests the 
> fix, changes the status of the report to "fixed" or something?
>
People would submit to mantis. Because manits asks for lots of 
important stuff: version of Squeak, Plattfrom, steps to reproduce. 
After
that the status can be changed, the bug can be assigned to different 
people, it can be moved to different categories.

> Ken & Brent wrote BFAV precisely to allow people to post bugs and 
> allow people to track these. If noone reviews bugfixes in BFAV (this 
> is what's irritating you, isn't? Loads of bug reports & bug fixes but 
> noone looking at the fixes?),

No, the problem is not that nobody looks at the fixes: Nobdy looks at 
the bug-reports. Bug reports just sit there. I don't know how many bugs
there are, if some are important or not, on which system they where 
reported. I can't seach for bugs, and so on.

> why would people start tracking bugs in, say, Mantis?

Usability is important. if you tell people "look at that webpage, 
there's a list of open bugs. And on that one, fil in the form to report
bugs" is somewhat more userfriendly... especially with lots of 
meta-data to be changed for each bug (assigment to a developer, status,
comments...). And this is quite different from the process of 
harvesting a changeset.

      Marcus