incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <>
Subject RE: STATUS file compared/contrasted with an issue tracker
Date Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:37:02 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I agree with Nicola Ken (and you) about using the STATUS file for
> > status, and had originally thought to suggest that such change requests
> > could be entered into the STATUS file, too.

> I have checked in the incubator CVS a new version of the Incubator site,
> with a proposed new layout.

Can you post a live copy to your home page or somewhere?

> I am now stuck with exactly this issue, the STATUS files.
> Could you give me a hand in making a version that can be
> effectively used for identifying action items in order?

Be happy to do so.  Of course, you won't be getting this until about 15
hours after you posted, but yes.

> We could use a status.xml file that contains information about who does
> things, todos, and changes. The less nice side is that it's XML.
> Ideas?

Well, I want to hear Roy's thoughts, because the HTTP Server project seems
to do a lot more in STATUS than most other projects.  Personally, I would
record in the STATUS file the incubation related information.  Particularly
issues related to status of legal issues, completion of exit criteria, and
any other information that the Incubator PMC felt was important.  At the
least, the STATUS file will naturally be polled by the PMC for each review
cycle.  If the project chooses to copy the STATUS items into an issue
tracker so that they'll receive periodic reminders of outstanding items,
that would be their choice, but the only official document would be the
STATUS file.  Since you want to use XML, if the XML were defined properly,
someone could write a tool to generate a report of all outstanding items.
But I don't think that we want to get into the process of building yet
another ad hoc issue tracker.

Or we could stick with plain text.  From what I think we are saying
(including below), the original status file could come from a template,
customized if/as necessary by the PMC and placed into the incubator CVS

> > The ASF has different projects doing things differently.  In my opinion,
> > of the interesting things with Incubator is that the Incubator is going
> > bring out those differences, and help to illuminate best practices
> > the ASF, not just for new projects.

> True. But some things need to be taken into account nevertheless.
> 1 - security (authentication, authorization)
> 2 - history
> 3 - backups
> 4 - change messages to the Incubator Project
> 5 - one place to have all items tracked

> CVS gives all of these, and IMHO no issue tracker can easily be made to
> do it.

AFAIK, a good issue tracker (bugzilla notwithstanding) will do all of the
above.  But I'm *not* saying that we should use an issue tracker for
incubation status.  For one thing, we trust CVS and we don't afford any of
the issue trackers the same degree of trust.

So what, specifically, are we talking about in terms of your item #5?  The
fact that you say "we are not talking about 200 action items, but 20" leads
me to believe that we're in agreement, and talking about the status of items
related to incubation.  And those we agree should be recorded in the STATUS

> they are free to *also* use an issue-tracker, as long as
> the mentor reports these in CVS in a reasonabe timeframe

We appear to be saying the same things, yes?

	--- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message