[Python-Dev] what do you like about other trackers and what doyouhate about SF? (original) (raw)
Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Wed Apr 26 02:50:30 CEST 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] what do you like about other trackers and what do youhate about SF?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] what do you like about other trackers and what do you hate about SF?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message news:e2matq$kr$1 at sea.gmane.org...
The most useful thing I can think of is to be able to tag each item by the doc section (lang ref, lib ref, tut, pep) most applicable to the item and then be able to sort tracker items (on any of the lists, possibly) by such tags or be able to extract all tracker items, or all open tracker items, for a particular section.
In thinking some more, I realized that the basic problem is that the SF bug tracker is a mostly-closed, fixed-design, shared DB application with data access restricted to the canned interface.
What I therefore think we need is an extensible application (preferably open-source) written on top of an rdbms (ditto). We should be able to add fields, tables, reports, and scripts. We should be able to write the latter in Python using the standard DB API. If necessary, we should be able to add the interface if not already existent.
I think being able to access our data and do whatever we want with it is, in the long run, more important than any specific list of canned features. My first post, quoted above, illustrates the sort of Python-specific feature that I would not expect to find exactly built in to any tracker but which we could add with the flexibility that is my real wish.
Terry Jan Reedy
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] what do you like about other trackers and what do youhate about SF?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] what do you like about other trackers and what do you hate about SF?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]