From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from 5ess.inri.net ([107.161.31.183]) by ewsd; Thu Feb  8 22:02:03 EST 2018
Received: from k.inri ([107.161.31.183]) by 5ess; Thu Feb  8 22:01:58 EST 2018
Message-ID: <52BC1D4E674E3C4BE804E608A5C0EB63@5ess.inri.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 22:01:48 -0500
From: sl@stanleylieber.com
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] PROPOSAL: New 9front Bug Tracker
In-Reply-To: 20180208090720.GA87033@wopr
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: stable abstract property singleton 

> Bugs shouldn't be prioritized by submitters anyway; they should be
> prioritized by someone else.  All bugs are high priority for the person
> reporting the bug.  The person fixing the bug should be in charge of
> deciding how quickly that gets done.

I agree.


> So, with Subject coming for free (it's in the email), and state/priority
> just being top-level directories,

This seems good.


> all that's left to annotate is owner
> and subsystem.  Just having something that matches /^Subsystem: in any
> file is probably good enough for the latter.

That seems fine.  Or, should we just have a file subsystem that is
just a one line (or one word) description of the subsystem.  That
would be very easy to create, find, and manipulate.


> The former can just be
> subdirectories inside the toplevel directories.

This is probably fine, too, but do we really even need to assign bugs
to individuals?  In our context, what are the benefits vs the
administrative overhead?

sl