On Dec 23, 2007, at 2:47 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
SourceForge.net hat gesagt: // SourceForge.net wrote:
Bugs item #1856583, was opened at 2007-12-22 13:17 Category: pdpedia
Should we deal with pdpedia bugs at Sourceforge? Personally I'm against it.
As one of the main users of the bug tracker, I am strongly in favor of it. We have a bug tracker, why use another? And what harm does it do to use that bug tracker for pdpedia bugs?
Before asking for reasons why pdpedia bugs should not be on Sourceforge, I think, giving reasons on why they *should* be there would be appropriate.
So far the SF tracker has been used for bugs in Pd and extensions, i.e. in software, including the software's documentation.
pdpedia is a project separate from the developer's repository. It has it's own website, so bugs could be dealt with using a pdpedia bug wiki page. We also don't track bugs on pd.info with SF, we don't track mailing list issues there etc. I think, mixing developer oriented bugs with bugs in remote websites doesn't help with keeping track and a clear view of software/doc bugs. (No, and I don't think, that the fact, that pdpedia contains texts about Pd automatically qualifies it to use the SF tracker. Wikipedia bugs don't belong to the Linux bug tracker neither.)
Of course that is just my view. I am very able to accept the views of others and I won't veto against pd.info, pdpedia, pd-list etc. bugs, but changes like that *must be discussed* here first, not just decided by one person alone.
Because the pure-data is setup, it works, and people know how to use it. Verbose bug reports are always useful, for pdpedia and anything. If anyone wants to set up another bug tracker for pdpedia, I won't stop them.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.