Re: [Fwd: Re: Apache switching to Scarab]

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 13:56, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 15:41, Luis Villa wrote:
> > The end of this (discussing the code modularity of bugzilla 2.17.4)
> > makes me think that maybe we should skip 2.16 and go directly to 2.17-
> > sounds like it might make some of the bug-buddy stuff much easier.
> > Anyway... just a random morning thought. :) 
> > 
> > Luis
> > 
> 
> /me attacks Luis with a large trout. With big, nasty teeth :-)
> 
> Don't forget that bugzilla-new currently has working [1] bug-buddy
> import support. 

Honestly, I didn't know that. That's great. :) [Last bit should be
fairly straightforward, though I wish we had a better solution. :/

> 2.17 has some great features, but it's a moving target;
> 2.16 has working code in our CVS and could even be ready for mainstream
> testing soon [2].

I also didn't know that. Wow. [What's left, if bug-buddy works?]

>  I don't think we should regress all that work and
> start a brand new port. Yet.
> > A Bug is an object (though it's read-only at the moment - being able to
> > write to a Bug object is on the intended features list).
> 
> ^^ If a bug is read-only, bug-buddy import isn't massively helped by
> code modularity yet?

I'd hoped we could fill things in for them :) I poked at their Bug.pm
framework, and it did seem well thought out. It just seems like that's
better than writing our own new stuff. But if it's already written, then
ignore me. :) 

Enjoy your holiday. :) 

Luis