[LAD] meta issue tracker idea

[Ray Rashif]

On 5 June 2010 21:58, Olivier Guilyardi <list at samalyse.com> wrote:
> Le 05/06/10 13:45, Renato a écrit :
>>
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:18:02 +0200
>> Philipp<hollunder at lavabit.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> this is all about making Linux Audio more useful.
>>> The idea came about because on the one hand there are parts of Linux
>>> audio that really need some coders attention and on the other hand
>>> there are coders who don't know where to start. I realize that there
>>> never are more than enough coders, so this is mainly about bringing
>>> attention to the parts that need it the most.
>>>
>>> To a degree it's what bug/feature trackers are there for, but those
>>> are usually per application, and while there are category and priority
>>> systems in place those are rarely used.
>>> So what this is also about is bridging a gap between users, developers
>>> and between applications.
>>>
>>> It would be quite simple really.
>>> An easy to find, central place, possibly a wiki or a tracker.
>>> Anyone, a user most likely, describes his workflow and what the
>>> showstopper is. This could be applications not syncing properly, or an
>>> essential but missing feature. The idea is to tackle mainly
>>> infrastructure and cross application problems, with the goal to make a
>>> workflow actually work.
>>> The user should have to specify all relevant information available,
>>> such as version information, links, probably some kind of priority or
>>> urgency indication and how hard he believes it would be.
>>> He could also put up a reward of sorts, not necessarily monetary.
>>> Any developer could pick up the task and work on it, possibly leaving
>>> a notice.
>>>
>>> The possible benefits I see are:
>>> a) A kind of overview of what's needed the most, one place where you
>>> can see what's actually important to users.
>>> b) A way to identify and fix problems between applications -
>>> something I believe is very important for a system that encourages
>>> the use of multiple applications at once. I believe there are numerous
>>> synchronisation/transport issues for example which are never really
>>> tackled, despite this being a very important part of the
>>> infrastructure. c) Emphasis on actual workflow and usability.
>>> d) It would work for any program, even those without tracker and those
>>> that aren't high profile and aren't usually in the center of
>>> attention.
>>>
>>> Could this work? What do you think?

Sure, it's a neat idea. If implemented _properly_, it will at least
serve the function of having a centralised database of such issues.
But what really caught my attention is this:

>> One feature I believe would be useful is that if I file a "bug"
>> regarding the interaction of app 1,2 and 3, the relative devs get
>> automatically mailed and can jump in the discussion

Now, I'm not very optimistic about co-operation between developers of
app 1, 2 and 3, unless all three are high-profile. The only assurance
is a monetary bounty system.


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD