Then I guess the best way is to keep the ML and have the ticket system
interface with the ML in a bot-like fashion. Ill think about it and propose
something next year... thanks!

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 2:08 PM dana <dana@dana.is> wrote:

> On 27 Jun 2018, at 04:28, Francisco de Zuviría Allende <
> franciscodezuviria@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Sometime next year (when I am not overworked and overassigned) I would
> >like to host some infrastructure for the zsh project (ticketing, C.I.,
> >stuff like that), so I might as well start getting some insight on the
> >dev process now. How does the patch you just submitted get integrated
> >in the mainline? Did you also make a pull request?
>
> I just merged it directly since nobody objected. zsh doesn't use PRs for
> most
> changes, just the mailing list. (Oliver had set up a system where people
> could
> submit GitHub/GitLab PRs for completion functions, but i'm not sure how
> often
> it's used.)
>
> I'm a very minor player in this project so my opinion doesn't mean much,
> but i
> do think an issue tracker would be nice, if only as a place to catalogue
> known
> bugs. It's just that most of the people who do the really *heavy* work on
> the
> project prefer the ML. (See workers/37428, users/22326, workers/43054....)
> Having a separate tracker going on the side seems like a possibility, but
> it
> raises a lot of maintenance/logistics questions.
>
> Does the ML just get subscribed the to the GH/GL project and linked that
> way, or
> do the tracker maintainers need to act as manual go-betweens? Will the
> ML-preferring people want to keep track of both a sequence number and an
> issue
> number, or will again a tracker maintainer need to keep the two processes
> synchronised manually? &c.
>
> I don't know, but it would need thought put into it, and several key people
> would need to be invested.
>
> dana
>
>