Summary of BTS evaluations
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Hi,
Over the past day or two, I've looked at several different bug-tracking
systems (BTS). Thanks for the suggestions. Here are my findings:
ROUNDUP
Pros:
* Written in Python and has a Python API
* Quick install for a default configuration
* Looks reasonably secure
* Has a nice e-mail interface built-in
* Nice way of parsing e-mail attachments and making them into bug
attachments
Cons:
* Making changes to the config requires editing cryptic text files or even
deleting all info in the database and restarting
* Not a lot of flexibility in the security part. Either people can
do everything or they can do nothing.
* Interface is kinda ugly
BUGZILLA
Pros:
* The most flexible and powerful system I looked at.
* Configuration entirely through the web.
Cons:
* Its code is ugly, hackish, and kludgy the whole way through, which makes
me nervous. If you've ever seen ugly, hackish, and kludgy Perl, it would
make you nervous, too :-)
* Requires mysql, which I do not currently run. Postgres editions exist,
but are even more hackish and kludgy, and the e-mail interface has not
been ported to Postgres.
* E-mail interface does not appear to accept free-form text for reports.
* Interface is mediocre.
RT2
Pros:
* Very nice interface
* Not quite as flexible as Bugzilla, but still quite flexible.
* Robust security system, again not quite as much as Bugzilla, but close.
* Configuration almost entirely through the web.
Cons:
* Requires login to access but does not have a "register yourself" feature.
I would have to write that.
* Requires mod_perl, which again I do not currently run.
GNATS
Pros:
* Nice e-mail interface for some things
* Ability to hide some data
Cons:
* Security makes me nervous. For instance, passwords are stored in a
plaintext file locally.
* Interfaces look dated but functional.
* Buggy handling of attachments.
--
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> GPG: 0x8A1D9A1F www.complete.org
- Summary of BTS evaluations,
John Goerzen <=
|
|