[OSM-talk] The future of bugs in OSM

[Emilie Laffray]

2009/7/17 Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com>

>
> That's practically an argument for keeping them separate in the first
> place.
>
> For the same reason that we have trac for software bugs (we don't get
> people to add new bug reports in comments into the source files) we
> shouldn't put bugs directly into the geodata. Next thing we'd be doing
> something horrid to the tags so that I can reply to a bug saying
> "bug:151234:gravitystorm:20090715=I've been there, but it looks fine
> to me" and then building tools to parse all that stuff.
>
> The geodata tables are for geodata. We're already trying to prise the
> non-geodata tags out of the geodata (e.g. putting created_by on
> changesets). Lets not take five steps backwards by putting bugs in as
> nodes/ways/relations.
>
>
I agree that we should not start putting the bugs into the geodata. It will
make the database even heavier for no real advantages. Keeping a separate
database is a much saner option and much manageable.
It also allows the use of workflow which is always useful when managing a
bug. If you put this inside the geodata, you lose that kind of flexibility.

Emilie Laffray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090717/fe0fc794/attachment.html>