Re: more bug tracker improvements

Gregory Beaver wrote: > It makes me a bit sad to see both the implied mistrust in your message > and the problem in the changelog of 1.10.1. Greg, there is no mistrust implied. I just wanted to say that the old way of assigning the developer (e.g. you or me) to a bug, while at the same time this name shows up in the generated changelog, is not a good solution for every case. If, of course, e.g. the patch provider is assigned to the bug, this solution might be okay. And my message wasn't meant badly against the pearweb package, it was just the last changelog showing up on the pear-general mailing list. I could have chosen another examle. > One of the main purposes > behind adding the package.xml generator for roadmap, requiring > pear.php.net accounts for opening bugs and so on is to provide a > technical way to implement proper crediting. If you feel that this is > not providing enough, a patch or fleshed-out idea would be very appreciated. No, I have no better idea (seen from a technical point of view). I give credits manually, and see no problem, because I edit the package.xml manually anyway. This is again not meant badly about the generator. There might be a lot of other people that want to use it, while I'm already happy with the old way. This is, as many things in life, personal preference > As for suggesting that developers who fix bugs should not be listed next > to the bug that they fix, this seems to be a double standard. Why are > the people actually taking the trouble to apply fixes, verify that they > work and don't introduce regressions, close the bug, update package.xml > and other work any less important than someone who opens a bug with a > 2-line patch? Either everyone or no one should be credited. Again, maybe pearweb was a bad example because of its "big" maintainer list with having only you being really active in the past. For "normal" packages credit is (IMO!) already given in the release announcement. With the generator way only one person can be credited. But what would you do if person X reports a bug, provides a 90% ready patch, and you do the other 10% work of it, do some more tests etc.? In this situation both people should be credited with your reasoning. And again, my message wasn't meant badly against you or anybody else. I just wanted to say that we shouldn't do the "mistake" that the PHP people do -- at least many people don't like the missing credits of patch providing people there. And please note that I appreciate the work that you put into the PEAR installer and the website. Without that we maybe would still wait for features that were announced in spring 2006 and before. Conclusion: Don't interpret my message as a critism against you, but as a general reminder about crediting and how we shouldn't do it. I'll try to find a better example next time. Regards, Mark -- http://www.markwiesemann.eu