[Tracker-discuss] Is our Roundup instance applicable to other organizations?

["Martin v. Löwis"]

> The XEmacs folks currently have no issue tracker and are starting to think
> about installing something.  I mentioned on the xemacs-beta mailing list
> over the weekend that you all have gone through a substantial period of
> customization to make it sing and dance to our tune.  Would it be
> appropriate as-is for other organizations' use?

I think I disagree with Erik's analysis that this tracker instance is
very reusable - not more so than the "classic" template that ships
with Roundup. In particular, the schema was heavily influenced by
the SF schema - so if you migrate from SF, using the bugs.python.org
schema might be a good idea. Otherwise, I cannot see it as better or
worse than the classic schema.

OTOH, various detectors and extensions are useful for other
installations as well; people are free to copy them as they
please (although I formally can't speak from a licensing point
of view for many of these).

> If some changes were necessary would it be out of the question for
> a subset of the XEmacs folks to gain commit access to our Subversion
> repository and just operate on a branch?

That would be possible. However, I recommend that whoever wants to
work on this just looks at what is there at first, if they then find
that they want to use it, and want to commit their instance in
the python.org repository, we could arrange for that (but I can't
see why they wouldn't want to store it in their own SCM).

> Or is there be a better way for
> them to start from what we are now using and avoid much of the effort that
> folks like Erik, Martin and others have expended to get the Python issue
> tracker to its current usable state?

It's fairly easy to set up roundup from scratch, using the classic
template. Unless there is a good reason not to do that, this is what
I would recommend. It works really well.

Regards,
Martin