There are the Savannah trackers. Nobody really likes them.
There is a proposal to add/move to http://debbugs.gnu.org/. It can be operated by email, Debian people (developers and users) already know how to use it.
There are the Open Issues pages. This is basically just free-form text enriched by some tags for grouping, editable via the web and through Git commit. tschwinge added this to the set, and/but mostly is the sole user of it, even though casually there are a few other people contributing, and surely these pages do show up in web searches. A more traditional system (like the Savannah trackers or the new debbugs) do have their advantages, too, so perhaps there's a niche for both these and the Open Issues.
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-31:
<tschwinge> So. Savannah trackers vs. Open Issues vs. debbugs. Any input? <youpi> I like *both* open issues and debbugs <youpi> open issues is good for exposing things that people may encounter in other situations <youpi> while debbugs is useful to actually work on a bug <tschwinge> youpi: The advantage of debbugs being the email interface and the well-known procedure, or something else? <youpi> email interface, which nicely flows into a mailing list <youpi> the savannah bug updates suffer from the additional layout <tschwinge> How does one decide what to put in a debbug and what in an Open Issue page? <youpi> I'd say it's not exclusive at all <youpi> like, a bug on a specific case can start as debbug, and as we discover it's more general and will not be fixed immediately, get an open issue page <youpi> and conversely, when we know some shortcoming, start with an open issue, and if some bugs are submitted which are actually due to it, cross-link <tschwinge> OK. <youpi> (some general short coming I mean, like SIGINFO) <tschwinge> And we would keep the current stuff in the trackers, and let these ``get empty'' gradually (it'll be years...) ;-) or migrate the remaining issues? <tschwinge> What we can do is inhibiting the creation of new issues in the trackers. <youpi> I'd say move <youpi> else they will be forgotten <tschwinge> Hrm. <antrik> actually, I considered creating a track-like plugin for ikiwiki, as both the popularity of trac and the usefulness of open_issues show that something wiki-like is actually more useful than a rigid traditional bugtracker. but I'm not really willing to do the work, which is why I didn't propose it before :-) <antrik> err... trac-like <youpi> yes, the wiki part is really useful to keep a good summary of the issue <tschwinge> antrik: Same for me. I always hoped that someone would do it... :-) <antrik> hehe <tschwinge> antrik: But, as you surely know, this email parsing business is just too ugly to do realiable, etc. <antrik> youpi: my point is that adding a few additional bits (like a comfortable tagging functionality, and some mail interface) could turn into a full-blown tracker unifying the advantages of both... but as I said, I'm not really willing to do the work :-) <youpi> additional to open_issue you mean? <youpi> yes, but like you say :) <antrik> tschwinge: hm... seems to work well enough it debbugs <youpi> debbugs just piles things <youpi> and has a few commands <youpi> you'd still need the web interface to edit the wiki part for instance <antrik> of course. that wouldn't change at all <antrik> (except for adding a tagging GUI perhaps) <antrik> (debbugs of course is not the only mail-operable bugtracking system... there are a number of others -- and I heard rumors even bugzilla grew a mail interface now...) <youpi> antrik: a .mdwn diff should however be sent to the bug for information <youpi> atm, what happens sometimes is somebody saying something here on #hurd, tschwinge turning that into an open_issue, and it does not show up on the mailing list <tschwinge> debbugs surely has the advantage that it is available (nearly) right now. <mattl> RT (request tracker) and ikiwiki play quite nicely together. <tschwinge> mattl: You'Re using that at GNU/FSF/somewhere, right? <mattl> you can close tickets from the wiki, and RT has a good command line interface, email interface and web interface. <mattl> tschwinge: yeah, we use RT and ikiwiki. <mattl> RT for all FSF communications, and ikiwiki for internal organising. <mattl> RT is not the easiest thing to set up, but works pretty well once it's running.
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-10-19:
<antrik> tschwinge: BTW, what happened to the plan of killing help-hurd? <antrik> (and possibly some other lists) <tschwinge> antrik: That plan got stalled, obviously. ;-) <tschwinge> antrik: Now, I had proposed to use hurd-dev for development, and turn bug-hurd into a debbugs bug reportling list. That proposal has not heard any supportive/unsupportive votes yet. <tschwinge> hurd-devel. That's the name. <tschwinge> And turn off hurd-devel-readers. And turn off help-hurd. <tschwinge> And web-hurd. <tschwinge> Keep l4-hurd. <antrik> yeah, I haven't replied regarding bug-hurd vs. hurd-devel, as I'm not quite sure myself <antrik> on one hand, a dedicated bug list can be convenient; on the other hand, this kind of splits always causes unnecessary overhead IMHO <antrik> also, hurd-devel would obviously be *only* for development, so in this scenario we actually would *need* to keep something like help-hurd as well... <antrik> I think I'd prefer the non-exclusive mode for debbugs... would have to check again how it works exactly though :-) <tschwinge> antrik: I quite liked that exclusive mode for it automatically archives discussions grouped by threads for easy reference. <tschwinge> antrik: And, the very most of bug-hurd emails are ``issues'' of some sort: bug report, patch (that needs to be tracked until it is applied, etc. <antrik> tschwinge: exclusive mode would just mean that people would take most of these discussion elsewhere, and the bug list would only be used when someone explicitly wants something tracked as a bug... <antrik> ideally, the bug tracker should only track things if explicitly CCed. ideally, it should be possible to forward mails that have been posted without CC, so they can be tracked retroactively... <tschwinge> antrik: Why do you think that people would take discussions elsewhere? <antrik> because most people don't consider it useful to put every random question or remark in an issue tracker <antrik> IMHO it should be easy to turn messages into tickets/followups; but it should not happen automatically <tschwinge> What if people wouldn't even notice that their issues is kept in a tracker, too? <draculus> It might send a notification of some sort? <antrik> I once posted to a list with RT in exclusive mode, and quite frankly, I considered it rather strange to get a ticket created for my message :-) <antrik> tschwinge: that would only be useful if you always close tickets for irrelevant or finished discussions, mark duplicates etc. -- and this would have to happen silently, without noise for most other people following the list... <antrik> tschwinge: are you sure you want to do that?... :-) <tschwinge> Yes. <tschwinge> Because that way we don't lose so much stuff as we currently do. <antrik> well, the decision is up to you in that case... <tschwinge> In fact, probably less than manually archiving the content, as I'm doing now, partially. <tschwinge> antrik: Well, I'm just out for getting some comments. <antrik> it would further reduce our bus factor though :-( <tschwinge> That already is low enough that it doesn't matter anymore... <tschwinge> antrik: So, to sum up, you'd use non-exclusive mode, but are not actively opposed to exclusive mode as long as it doesn't too much disturbe any procedures you're currently using? <antrik> well, if it happens mostly in the background, I don't see why anyone should be opposed... <antrik> just make sure people posting to the list don't get a "ticket created" message in response :-) <antrik> it would make it harder though for people to explicitly track issue they are interested in I fear <antrik> when using non-exclusive mode, and people explicitly CC things to the tracker, which sends a notice about a ticket being created, everyone sees that and can act accordingly. if everything happens in the background, few people would even think about it... <antrik> so non-exclusive mode probably needs more effort to keep in order; but it would be more useful too... <tschwinge> Well, but with exclusive mode, people don't lose anything compared to the current state, do they? <antrik> tschwinge: probably not compared to the current state... but possibly compared to a well-used non-exclusive mode :-)