Ah, yes that does sound doable.  Now that you mention it I do remember
discussing this before.  I'd totally be open to this.

OK, great to hear. I actually was a bit afraid I might have largely misinterpreted previous discussions. Good to know you don't think the suggestion is insane after all ;-).

If the incoming queue is to be general including for lib2geom, perhaps
it should be named something more generally, like

     https://gitlab.com/inkscape/report

Or 

     https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inbox

And presumably it's where we would want to direct inkscape.org/report?

I'm open to wording. Historically we chose the "inkscape-*" prefix for pretty much everything (which is why I used it in my example) and as of now I think lib2geom can still be seen as a part of Inkscape, but yes, we certainly can pick a shorter / better name.

• I was considering "helpdesk" and "support" but discarded those as we probably shouldn't suggest in any way that general support requests should be directed there, but underline the bug/issue tracker aspect
• I was considering a plain "bugs" or "issues" but we'd end up filing bugs/issues at "https://gitlab.com/inkscape/bugs/issues" or "https://gitlab.com/inkscape/issues/issues" (I think the problem of redundancy is obvious here...)
• I like the general idea of "report" / "inbox" but it might lack the central piece of information on *what* is reported here / *what* the inbox is for

If we stick with the "inkscape.org/report" shortcut, I can totally see "report" working, though. However I remember Thomas raising concerns about this very shortcut, so there might be room for an even better option.

Yes, and there is also a desire to direct wishlist issues to something
else, and this approach would enable doing that.

Better yet: It would create a space where these could be freely discussed until a sufficient consensus has formed on how a new feature should actually look. That's something we were missing in Launchpad! (Yes, there were blueprints, but it was so kludgy to use no real discussion ever took place, which made many feature requests / wishlist items completely useless as even if a developer wanted to work on them there was no baseline on what implementation actually made the most sense to users).

We have some issue tickets open on how we should handle the bug tracker,
I'll review through those, and see if we can reuse one of them to
discuss this plan.

Thanks, looking forward to it. I think a lot of relevant discussion already happened in https://gitlab.com/inkscape/infra/services/issues/1 - as a matter of fact I just realized I actually made the exact suggestion there, too, and I still agree with my idea of an "inbox"-like tracker ;-)

Bryce

Cheers
Patrick



Am 15.01.2019 um 20:43 schrieb Bryce Harrington:

Yeah, I would love to see this capability, and think it'd help users and
developers a lot.  And you're right this would be the perfect time to
introduce something.  But other than roughing in the concept, progress
on implementing it has not moved very far forward.  I'd love to see us
work on introducing a solution for this in the future, so I'd like us to
keep it as a long term goal, but I don't think it is worth delaying
moving ahead on using gitlab issues.

I also worry about seeing an unmanageable amount of bug reports coming
in.  Hopefully that doesn't happen soon.  If it does start to become a
problem we'll need to rethink plans.  There may be more than one way to
solve this problem, so it's worth keeping open to alternate ideas.

Bryce

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 06:35:41PM +0100, Patrick Storz wrote:

Related to this very question: What's the status on "friendly feedback" and
the idea of separate (user- and developer-facing) trackers?

During the last discussions I was involved in there seemed to be a whish to
keep especially
     https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/issues
"internal" in the sense that only developers / experienced users should
directly open issues against the main project, so it would only contain
valid and easily reproducible bug reports in the long run.

I think the intention was that the vast amount of "unfiltered" reports
should be made against a "catch all" tracker for triaging, where the wider
community could help to sort reports into the relevant sub-projects and
opinions / feature requests / support requests / invalid reports could be
caught early and answered accordingly (hopefully in a more friendly way than
"not a bug, closing").

Is this still a goal or (to say it bluntly) do we just continue as-is, which
will likely mean we just start fresh in collecting an unmanageable amount of
bugs? ;-)

If we *were* to make this cut I feel like *now* would be the time to do so,
before the inkscape/inkscape tracker is flooded with "random" reports
triggered by the upcoming releases.

Cheers
Patrick


Am 15.01.2019 um 17:54 schrieb Marc Jeanmougin:

I'll be glad to make a post in forums about this.  But is this the
correct link?

https://gitlab.com/groups/inkscape/-/issues

Or is it this?  https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/issues

The first one shows all bugs from all the Inkscape projects (Inkscape,
extensions, website, vectors…) while the second only pertains to Inkscape


_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel