BFAV to shutdown or not shutdown
karl.ramberg at chello.se
Fri Apr 22 14:52:44 UTC 2005
stéphane ducasse wrote:
> but we are all poor idiots dave.
> Believe me, me the first :)
> But your point is valid, history is important.
I hate to be a party pooper, but Mantis sucks!
I used BFAV quite a lot and liked to be using Squeak to fix it self.
Now I don't know the process and I have lost most interest in it :-(
> On 22 avr. 05, at 12:54, David T. Lewis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
>>> Primarily because we janitors are human and the BFAV database serves
>>> now as a useful backup to help us keep track of what issues we have and
>>> have not properly handled. If we miss one then it is very easy to
>>> by looking in BFAV. Secondarily, there are still issues in BFAV that
>>> should be handled in the old way. To do that harvesters need to be
>>> to close the issue, mark them as approved, mark them as being in an
>>> update etc. All this relies on BFAV being able to receive new reports
>>> by email.
>> Keeping BFAV available is a good thing. There are lots of issues and
>> concerns with history documented in BFAV and not (yet) in Mantis. As
>> an example, bug #989 in Mantis reports a problem that is a show-stopper
>> for Tweak. The original root problem dated back at least a couple of
>> years, and some poor idiot had provided an incorrect fix that ultimately
>> resulted in the show-stopper for Tweak. The history of this was all
>> in BFAV, and the idiot in question was able to look it up in BFAV and
>> provide enough background to help sort things out.
>> The moral of the story is that we have a lot of old issues that need
>> to be managed, and BFAV is still useful even if the issue management
>> process has moved to Mantis.
More information about the Squeak-dev