Strategic features (was Slashdot article)

Gervase Markham gerv at
Sun Dec 12 23:36:44 UTC 2004

Tom Emerson wrote:
> There appear to be two major schools of thought here: one, lead by
> Gerv, is that Bugzilla should be a bug tracking system only, and that
> other functionality such as project planning/management and the like
> are out of scope. The other is that Bugzilla needs more project
> management functionality so that it can compete with the commercial
> systems.

I don't think this is really a correct summary of the situation. If we 
leave aside custom fields for a moment, my feeling is that there's a 
fair amount of consensus about the direction Bugzilla should be moving 
in. For example, I'm happy with most of the features in Vlad's list, and 
I've heard both Dave and Myk argue against function creep before.

Also, your splitting of the paths into only two routes is a false 
dichotomy. A third solution is to provide much better integration points 
for external project planning/SCM systems, and documentation on how to 
integrate with the market leaders in each space.

> Given that this is open source software, perhaps those who think
> Bugzilla should move into an expanded feature set should just fork the
> next release and move it into the direction they think is right, and
> let the community decide which one to use.

I think that's a terrible idea :-) The disagreements, such as they are, 
aren't nearly big enough to warrant this move, which would just lead to 
vastly increased work for the two sides, and confusion in the marketplace.

And anyway, for a fork to happen you need someone to lead it. I'm 
certainly not going to fork a custom-fields-free version of Bugzilla.

We also have a good mechanism for resolving disputes about what goes in 
and what doesn't. It's called justdave. I'm fully signed up to this 
mechanism, and I hope everyone else is too.


More information about the developers mailing list