Communication

[Jay]

I've just done a little research on google and I couldn't see anything indicating any security issues with Mantis or anything to show that trac is more secure. Security measures do need to improve, but I fail to see how changing to trac is one of the ways. Las Venturas Playground is a large community indeed, but let's compare it to another community which is much larger: Multi Theft Auto. MTA have been using Mantis ever since it's development process began - you can check the dates of the very first tickets as evidence on http://bugs.mtasa.com. I'm sure they are a much more popular target for hackers compared to LVP. Infact you only have to google the words "MTA hacks" and you'll come across a large number of websites, and yet as far as mantis is concerned, they've never publicly stated any issues they've had with it and have never stopped using it for any reasons. There database must contain way more entries than 100,000 - there are more people than that registered on their community website alone. I'm interested in seeing your source on how trac is more secure.

• Ease of working
  Trac integrates Subversion with the interwebs, tickets, modifications, milestones and all can be exactly integrated with the source code. Committing a bugfix allows you to include the bug-number (#2423 for example) which Trac will automatically update. Yes, the Wiki syntax is different, tickets work slightly different but the solution is far more mature than mantis. There is a reason other parties like Webkit, ICU and BOINC use it.
  

Mantis has better priority and ticket management. Roadmaps and Milestones are possible in Mantis along with a nice grouping system for bugs, features, etc, allowing you to view and organise your tickets a lot better. I don't see a need for trac to handle source modifications anyway, we can do that client side with tortoise subversion just fine.

Excuse me? By saying this you're pretty much implying you want developers to extort the right of exclusivity over the development of Las Venturas Playground. This way only they can decide where things are going, which is not how LVP works. You probably have the image that the Management does nothing at all, yet I also believe this post contains a shitload of new information to you already. Working the way you are proposing, simply thinking of a feature and implementing it straight ahead, is nothing else than a lack of professionality.

Obviously I'm not proposing we continue work like this because it just won't work. Everytime I've done a new feature I've added a ticket to go along with it. I've also tried discussing it on IRC and showed the ticket's URL with it, but nobody has ever commented or discussed it. I can't help it if people don't wish to share opinions - by doing this I just presume people have no objection to a new feature.

Anyway, I agree to your proposal of posting at the forums and waiting 2 days before going ahead with features. I can see [Griffin] has to because he's already made a topic.

Simply said, the Management outranks the Development Team. They have the right to be around wherever they want to be. Seeing you are in the Management IRC Channel you have that right as well. The Lead Developers are responsibly for managing LVP's progress, functionalities and future in the future, in corporation with the Management. Why? I don't see you working on any website, advertention campaign, general image or complaint filed by any random user. Features are nice, however let's be honest, scaling this gamemode to be able to manage 200, or possibly even 500 users is way over your head, especially in terms of storing the data. Without MrBondt, Badeend, Pugwipe and myself we'd still be using file storage, slow, non-indexed MySQL tables or various single-points of failures. Without people like Nakebod, estroe and Dennis the gamemode would have a lot less vehicles, jokes or properties. Yet none of these persons is listed as a developer.

Fair enough. Although I kind of meant point two with this quote (hey it was late) about management writing feature tickets and deciding on some features. Some changes need making to the CSI board. The Open for discussion section should be renamed to Approved and management shouldn't be allowed to move topics to it without discussing it with a developer first.

Disagreed. Especially in terms of bugs this simply doesn't work, everyone should find a good balance between features and bugfixing. Developing is not only taking the nice parts, every one of you is bright enough to find that balance, in discussion with the Lead Developers if required.

I actually meant features by this. I just wouldn't like to see things become a mess again. The Mantis is currently full of unassigned tickets that other developers have wrote but nobody else is willing to do it. Perhaps now that features are going to be properly discussed, this issue will no longer occur because we will be able to discuss who's doing what as well.

Agreed, I don't know why these people are around at all. I don't think crew should have the right to be betateam-members by default, however, I also believe there should be a Betateam Leader who is not a crewmember or developer.

This needs to have a high priority at the moment in my opinion - after all it's the beta team that finds the bugs. Some rules need setting up. Perhaps we could develop in beta version stages, each beta version containing a changelog for beta testers to go ingame and test.





P.S
If you write another big ass reply I'm going to bite your head off.