On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:48:31PM +1000, Richard Jones wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 08:05 AM, Jonathan
No one has told me about Roundup, and it didn't stand out in any of my previous investigations into bug trackers (some of which were more than cursory).
I guess I'll have to investigate Roundup further.
I posted about developing a twisted frontend to Roundup a while ago, I guess you a) weren't subscribed then or b) missed it :)
Probably b), being a heartless b., I tend to skip through the "I'm using twisted and I don't understand" posts (you know, the one's that would go to twisted-user if there was such a thing). Invariably I miss a few important ones. Here comes the pseudo-intelligent, almost-thought-out response to compliments yesterday's "oops" post. I've had a brief look at Roundup and I agree that a Twisted frontend to it would rock. However, Issues seems to have distinctly different design goals. I wasn't joking when I said Issues was all about simplicity (at least, in these first few releases). We've (the Issues dev team) been thinking about how to do the simplest possible bugtrack, mostly without reference to existing implementations (although we've looked at a lot of design docs). The basic "workflow" is modelled on something between a two-player conversation and a singles tennis match. The ball is in court A, court B, or the game is over. That's it. However, Roundup is way more featureful than that. It has a guiding principle of generality, which is far removed from Issues guiding principle of simplicity. Which of course doesn't rule out the idea of me making Issues some sort of Roundup plugin. It's certainly worth considering. Roundup looks like it rocks, and it obviously kicks some design ass. However, Issues (so far) is a mini experiment in how simple an issue-tracking workflow can get. cheers, jml