I would like to see some sort of replication/mirroring system, but
having a unified issue tracker sounds like a good idea.

+1

On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 14:48 -0800, Patrick Mihelich wrote:
> +1
> 
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey@willowgarage.com>
> wrote:
>         hi maintainers,
>         
>         We have many issue trackers for ROS software.  It all started
>         with the
>         way that we originally structured the code.  We wanted a
>         separation
>         between the plumbing (the 'ros' repo), the generic
>         capabilities
>         ('ros-pkg') and the Willow/PR2-specific capabilities
>         ('wg-ros-pkg').
>         As is commonly done, we created a Trac for each repo.  Now,
>         with code
>         stored in approximately 100 repositories, there are trackers
>         at
>         code.ros.org, kforge.ros.org, github, googlecode, and pretty
>         much
>         every other hosting site.
>         
>         This situation is confusing to users.  E.g., if I find a bug
>         in tf,
>         should I file a ticket at the 'ros-pkg' Trac, using the
>         'geometry'
>         component (which is what the geometry wiki page recommends) or
>         should
>         I use the kforge 'geometry' Trac (because I know that that's
>         where the
>         code actually lives), which has open tickets in it?  How about
>         graph_mapping?  The wiki page
>         (http://ros.org/wiki/graph_mapping)
>         doesn't have a "report bugs" link.  The code is in 'ros-pkg',
>         so maybe
>         I should use the 'ros-pkg' Trac, but then there's no
>         'graph_mapping'
>         component in that Trac.  It's also inconvenient for
>         developers; I need
>         to query and aggregate from several different trackers to get
>         a
>         picture of my open tickets.
>         
>         Also, each tracker is configured differently from the next,
>         and
>         different sets of credentials are required to file bugs
>         against
>         different parts of the ecosystem.
>         
>         Enough motivation; you get the point.  Federated development
>         makes
>         sense; but federated bug-tracking, I think, does not.
>         
>         A modest proposal: we create a single unified issue tracker
>         for ROS
>         software.  Rough draft:
>         * agree on a tracker system (would be a minor holy war, but
>         not insoluble)
>         * host it at ros.org
>         * authenticate via OpenID (like ROS Answers)
>         * create a component/module for each released stack
>         * create components/modules for unreleased stacks as requested
>         * change (simplify) the wiki to offer a single "report bugs"
>         link that
>         can appear on every page
>         * wherever feasible, move open tickets from legacy trackers
>         into the new one
>         
>         Thoughts?
>         
>                brian.
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ros-release mailing list
>         Ros-release@code.ros.org
>         https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-release mailing list
> Ros-release@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release

-- 
Bill Morris <bill@iheartengineering.com>
I Heart Engineering
http://www.iheartengineering.com
<3