Re: [sup-talk] Choosing a bug tracker for Sup

From: "Joe Wölfel" <joe@talkhouse.com>
To: sup-talk <sup-talk@rubyforge.org>
Subject: Re: [sup-talk] Choosing a bug tracker for Sup
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:40:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1257193345-sup-3174@maui.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1257169654-sup-6224@masanjin.net>

Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Mon Nov 02 09:50:08 -0500 2009:
> 1. Web submission. The burden of creating a record should be on the
> submitter---it's not too much to ask, and it saves developer time. This
> also encourages reporters to provide relevant information like version,
> platform, Ruby version, etc. upfront, since they can be prompted for
> those data explicitly.
> 
> 2. Developer discussion via email. This is vital. There's no way I would
> want to have a technical discussion using text boxes on a website. And
> this discussion should be attached to the issue, of course.

Please ignore this suggestion if you feel it is stupid, but couldn't an
internal sup-based bug submission perform prompting and validation tasks just
as easily as a web form? Also, wouldn't it be better for automatically
including or verifying operating system info, version info, libraries, etc?  

It seems like this might make for a more natural transition to email-based
developer discussion, reduce the need for centralized infrastructure, make it
easier for users to figure out how and where to submit a bug, and possibly make
critical system and library information more accurate and detailed.

Cheers,
Joe
_______________________________________________
sup-talk mailing list
sup-talk@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk