Fate vs Bugzilla for feature tracking

[Klaas Freitag]

On Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

Hi,

thanks for bringing that up and discussion so far :)
>
> it would be good if we could discuss this issue. i'm not really convinced
> personally about whether Fate is The Solution for us or not, but i'm also
> really unsatisfied with Bugzilla-as-feature-coordinator.
>
> discuss! =)
I think it would be wrong to use Fate only as a replacement for the 
enhancement functionality in Bugzilla. I agree it would not make sense
to have yet another tool for that, so the discussion went a bit in the
wrong direction.

Fate has more the focus on product design or planing. In openSUSE the 
process is that we gather features and different kind of managers 
decide which set of features is going to which product (and version),
i.e. where limited resources are booked on. While going through that 
decision process nice clearity of what kind of features can be 
expected in which product, which is useful information for not so 
much development related people (support, marketing etc.).

I think the product planing aspect could be interesting for the 
KDE community and so this proposal goes more into the direction
of replacing the feature plan that lives in TechBase. 

Of course KDE can not force resources to something and does (thankfully)
not have so much management, thus the process we use in SUSE does
not fit. But Andre was collecting some ideas on how that process 
should be to make this applicable for KDE: 
http://en.opensuse.org/OpenFate/Upstream

I think that makes it more clear what the benefit of using Fate
could be. Not so much about collecting user wishes, but a more 
concious decision of what goes to KDE 4.x and more transparency
about that. 

looking forward to more discussion,

Klaas