Freeciv

Things of interest to us that osdn and github are lacking.

OSDN;
- Only open/closed status, no way to indicate "Review Period"
- No relations between tickets - no metatickets

github:
- No way to indicate "Review Period"
- No relations between tickets - no metatickets
- Doesn't work well for non-code related project management Task tickets
- No components
- No types (bug/patch/task/milestone/deliverable)
(I sort of gave up with github at this point of the evaluation, so didn't really think through what else it lacks)

So, osdn is not good, but by far better than github.

My proposal for OSDN ticketing system pilot test:

https://www.freelists.org/post/freeciv-dev/Apparently-We-cant-have-new-user-accounts-to-hostedredmine,7

Marko Lindqvist wrote:

Patch to document osdn as the tracking site to use in S2_6 too.

Are we now convinced enough with osdn to push this patch in, and to release 2.6.4 with documentation pointing to osdn as the bug tracker?

Marko Lindqvist wrote:

Marko Lindqvist wrote:

Patch to document osdn as the tracking site to use in S2_6 too.

Are we now convinced enough with osdn to push this patch in, and to release 2.6.4 with documentation pointing to osdn as the bug tracker?

I have not seen a dependency between issue marker to document why a small, apparently independent change was done in osdn. (Maybe we should keep a pre draft of the release notes in Git so we can document it there? With the understanding that anything there can be completely rewritten or even dropped when the real release notes a re created?) I have also experienced that patch files refuse to upload to osdn for a while but it will start working again. While osdn isn't ideal it is what we have where users without existing hrm accounts can post. I therefore vote yes.