Problems with Jitterbug

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun 20, 1999, David Jones <dej at inode.org> wrote:

> GNATS uses a two-dimensional classification system: you have a category
> (util, io. lang, etc.) and a state (open, ignored, closed, etc.).

So does Jitterbug.

> GNATS is highly regimented in that state transitions are
> well-defined; Jitterbug is not.

In Jitterbug, the transitions are implicit, but well-defined.  When a
new bug report comes in, it's open (unreplied).  It is `closed' by
replying to it, say, telling the user the bug is/was fixed (replied).
It may be re-opened if the user sends a followup (pending).  It may be
closed again by replying or changing notes.  It's that simple.  The
problem is that, if you don't understand and follow the behavioral
model behind the implicit transitions, you'll just think Jitterbug
doesn't provide the states you need.  This might be considered a
limitation of Jitterbug, but I find it *highly* convenient because it
happens to model *exactly* the way I handle bug reports myself.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva IC-Unicamp, Bra[sz]il
{oliva,Alexandre.Oliva}@dcc.unicamp.br  aoliva@{acm.org,computer.org}
oliva@{gnu.org,kaffe.org,{egcs,sourceware}.cygnus.com,samba.org}
*** E-mail about software projects will be forwarded to mailing lists