I agree with Stephen (wow!) twice, both that GGUS and Savannah are not the same and that we can't control which tracker different software providers use. That is why GGUS needs to be the common link.
Of course no system will force anyone to respond to tickets but using them at least gives you a documented trail.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alessandra Forti
Sent: 12 July 2011 10:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: No ops meeting today
Hi John,
there is really no difference between GGUS and savannah. trac is
different because it is integrated with SVN and a wiki. But really
between GGUS and savannah it's only a matter of habit.
Even for developers it must be annoying to switch infact just to take
one of Stuart tickets as an example what happens is this
https://ggus.org/tech/ticket_show.php?ticket=64673
and related savannah which is fundamentally empty after 7 months.
https://savannah.cern.ch/bugs/index.php?75854
cheers
alessandra
On 12/07/2011 10:43, John Gordon wrote:
> GGUS isn't appropriate for tracking the progress of middleware bugs etc but it is still the place where issues are tracked. One should open a GGUS which should then include a reference to whatever tracking system the software developers are using.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Burke
> Sent: 12 July 2011 10:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: No ops meeting today
>
> Alessandra Forti [mailto:[log in to unmask]] said:
>> I know they always moved to savannah. Originally it was because GGUS
>> was bad. After 6 (7?) years is it still the case? GGUS has a timeline tool
>> that works only for notified sites. It could be extended to all support
>> units (and the notified should really be assigned for sites.
> Since there are now multiple middleware providers they can use whatever tracking tool they like, but I doubt that GGUS would be considered to be adequate for software development, it isn't really what it's designed for. glite seems to be largely sticking with savannah for now, although Laurence Field declared UDI a while ago and started using trac for the info system and gstat. I think there's also some question about the future of savannah at CERN in general, but any change will presumably be quite slow (cf cvs to svn).
>
> Stephen
|