| |||||||||||||
Distributed bug trackingDistributed bug trackingPosted May 15, 2008 13:39 UTC (Thu) by Jel (guest, #22988)In reply to: Distributed bug tracking by mh Parent article: Distributed bug tracking
What you're talking about is remote access and possibly offline preparation of bug reports. When people say distributed in terms of version control, they're talking about a system that has no central repository; just lots of peers, like a p2p system. In particular, they're talking about a system where each peer can be a completely self-sufficient branch, looking after it's own new features, bugs, etc., until it's all accepted into another (so-called upstream) branch and merged.
(Log in to post comments)
Distributed bug tracking Posted May 23, 2008 1:53 UTC (Fri) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] There seem to be (at least) two distinct clumps of benefits that might come from distributed bug tracking: Offline work, and...something about p2p, no central authority, etc. I completely understand the first, and it was the focus of the first few paragraphs of the article. The second is much fuzzier for me. I have been a proponent of DVCS for years, largely for that second reason. It can make projects more democratic, avoiding bad gatekeeping. But it's not clear to me that bug tracking has the same set of issues. It's pretty rare to be denied write rights to a bug database for an open project. It's also hard for me to imagine cases where I would really want to create a personal branch of bugs. The other aspect that has been mixed into this conversation really has little to do with whether a bug tracker is distributed or not: Integration. The ability to attach a commit to an issue resolution is powerful in many ways...but could be done with CVS and any centralized bug tracker. Finally, at least for now, I am definitely in the camp of not wanting bug reports to be stored inside each code branch. The bug database definitely feels like something separate, to me.
|
|||||||||||||