[Product-Developers] How attached to POI issue trackers are we?
T. Kim Nguyen
nguyen at uwosh.edu
Fri Feb 10 04:44:32 UTC 2012
My name is on only a handful of Poi on plone.org, but that is only for simple products that are relatively new, so I don't think I would miss their history.
It's the case of Poi that have long histories and (it sounds like…) unclosed bugs that contain proposed patches and workarounds in the comments that I think Andreas is concerned about.
Rather than rely on product devs being here and paying attention to this thread and knowing what state their Poi are in, could we do something like this: identify Poi with
- a large number of unclosed issues (could contain those patches and workarounds)
- a large number of new unconfirmed issues (could indicate an abandoned product)
- their last recently modified date sometime in the last year (indicates activity)
The point being getting some real data about which Poi are actively still in use.
Of course I think it's possible for a Poi to still exist in a product folder even though the project has been moved off to github…
On Feb 9, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Jon Stahl wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:27 PM, T. Kim Nguyen <nguyen at uwosh.edu> wrote:
>> I'm sure there would be wide support for allowing existing Poi on plone.org to continue being used, and not allowing new Poi to be created on plone.org.
>> If Poi eventually are to be shut off entirely on plone.org then it would be good to have a moderately decent export / import mechanism; I have no idea if there is such a thing today, however.
>>> We can and should be smart about the software we commit ourselves to
>>> maintain. Our community time, energy and ingenuity is valuable and
>>> should be focused on making a better CMS, not supporting and maintaining
>>> a very old, and passable but not terribly good issue tracker. Our
>>> users' time, energy, and experience is also very valuable and should be
>>> cared for when they report problems with or request features of the
>>> add-ons they use. It is not only appropriate, but important for all of
>>> this to be taken into account when asking the kind of questions being
>>> asked here. It is also appropriate and important to be asking these
>>> kinds of questions.
> Ross, Kim-
> Thanks, obviously you see where this conversation could be headed.
> ;-) I'm trying hard not to jump to any conclusions, though, so... to
> push you to answer a more specific question:
> As an add-on product dev/contributor, are there any specific Poi
> instances you are the owner or a significant user of that you,
> personally, would be sorry to see go away?
More information about the Product-Developers