Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

[Chris Jones]

> On 8 Oct 2016, at 9:18 pm, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff <marcel at herrbischoff.com> wrote:
>> I for one don't understand why one would carry around all that baggage
>> anyhow. Why not leave the old Trac as is and start fresh with a simple,
>> reduced issue tracker
> 
> When the simple reduced tracker is, as already said, too simple. It is in fact the very "Only if it was really, really awful. But then they would have
> changed it a long time ago." you already mentioned: yes, it's simple for you the end user, but it doesn't do what the people who actually do the work need it to do (and this is true across many projects, some of which have had to build their own additional tooling to interface with Github and try to add all the functionality it doesn't provide).

This might be the case, and i am sure can work if done properly if github and this external tool are properly tied into each other. What concerns me is the statement that in this migration to github, github and trac are kept completely separate, with no automatic linkage, but still contributors are expected to use both. I predict this is in the long run doomed to failure, as people will in the end submit github pull requests but forget about trac...

Chris

> 
> -- 
> brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
> allbery.b at gmail.com                                  ballbery at sinenomine.net
> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
> https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20161008/fa115356/attachment.html>