Re: Handling BUGS.

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

   From: Rob Browning <address@hidden>
   Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:25:08 -0600

   Hmm.  I think I can see the motivation, but I can also see the value
   in having a "complete tree" so that people who grab CVS and want to
   hack have all that info on hand.  Not sure.

we can effect logical inclusion while maintaining modularity by moving
devel/ up, and modifing CVSROOT/modules to add:

guile-plus-devel        &guile-core &devel

(i'll have to check syntax on this, and if we can actually modify
CVSROOT/modules -- anyone know for sure?)

   Would we still ship updated versions of these files at release time
   (as I've suggested for BUGS), or omit them entirely?

it's my understanding that devel/ is not included in "make dist" at all,
which seems right.  all the more reason to unbundle it, IMHO.  including
some form of bugs summary in top-level file BUGS is standard but we need
not distribute that info in the form we maintain it (it can be generated
as suggested).

   On a semi-related note, and FWIW, eventually I'd like to be able to
   manipulate the bug system via email (gpg signed perhaps), and perhaps
   also via the web.  But for now, I think we'd be fine with just some
   slight improvements.

modifying a file under cvs is comfortable to me.  i had weird experience
administering web-based bug tracking (bugzilla) -- sometimes users (in
this case ASIC (hardware) engineers) would press the "back" button on
their browser and resubmit forms that would confuse the system (to put
it charitably) -- so i'm not a big fan of that approach.

thi