Re: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR issues vs Github issues - open question

Hi Daniel,

On 04.03.2014 18:22, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> So recently, a decent conversation picked up around PEAR core; getting it
> stable; etc.
>
> One comment stood out to me
>>> I'd suggest at least documenting that PEAR lives @ github and list people
>>> having push access to the repository.
>>
>
> It was also pointed out that there was a large number of bugs that are
> resolved via github, but no obvious connection back to the original bug
> report exists.
>
> How would the community feel about increasing the use of github issue
> tracking, and on some or maybe even all packages; going read only for new
> pearweb based bug reports?

The problem is not that our tracker is bad, it is that no one checks it (I'm 
talking about tracker for PEAR-the-package specifically). There is a lot of 
noise, obvious pilot errors, duplicate issues.

We are also highly unlikely to migrate 100+ open issues to github, so we'll end 
up with two trackers that no one checks. Hardly an improvement...


> Given the fact we're fairly quiet/short handed, and the bug tracking code
> is a touch on the older side, this is a maintenance problem we needn't
> necessarily have (there is occasional spam, odd issues with html escaping
> bugs, etc).

I'm currently scratching my head about a much bigger maintenance problem: I see 
48 of 720 PEAR unit tests failing under Linux and 66 under Windows. Looks like 
no one bothers to run them even when merging pull requests...