bugs.kde.org -> bugzilla??

[Stephan Kulow]

Hi!

I'm currently evaluating the use of bugzilla at
bugs.kde.org. 

Our current bug system is an early fork of the 
debian bug system, which has been developed
a lot since then. The problems with our current
approach are massive:

  all bugs are stored in one directory three files
    per bug (and you know yourself how many bugs
    we have), which makes accesses to it very slow.

  the HTML pages are staticly generated by a process
    that runs all couple of hours making it hard to say
    if a bug is closed after you wrote a mail.

  we needed kbugbuster to have a useful interface to
    our bug system as the web interface itself is only 
    read only. So we got the great kbugbuster to work
    around that weakness

  you can't query bugs. Daniel did a great job finetuning
    htdig, but you can't query e.g. grave bugs of konqueror,
    kio, kio_http. You have to click a lot to get that.
    Or something simple as: all bugs reported by 
    coolo at kde.org, that are still open.
  
  the TODO list Dirk added isn't used, as it adds another layer
    on top of the bug system and isn't really integrated.

  the bug system isn't really maintained as it is.

from my look at bugzilla, it seems to solve all this. At some 
parts it appears as a shift of pradigmas, but I hope it will
make us much more productive as the introduction of 
kbugbuster did. 
As I said, the debian bug system has changed since then
a lot too, so changing to the new version would solve some
of our problems too, but not all of them and changing from the
old DBTS to the new one is the same amount of work than
to change to completly different BTS.

My question now is: did someone else notice that my lines
got longer and longer as I write? :)

Do you have other input? I guess, most of you have no 
idea how our current bug system looks like internally, so it
will be mostly about using BTSs - please tell me, but leave
out emotions if you can ;)

Greetings, Stephan