At 03:56 PM 12/10/2015 -0500, Galen Charlton wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Paul A <paul.a@navalmarinearchive.com> wrote:

...

Enhancements, improvements and new features: a good starting point is the user list, (IRC?) and possibly the dev list. If there is consensus, this should be filed at ??? <enhancements.koha-community.org> (similar to bugzilla)

It is hardly unusual for a "bugs" database to be used to record both reports of defects with the software and requests for enhancements. The Koha project has done so for years; procedures for doing are documented in the project bug reporting guidelines [1].

Hi Galen -- thanks for the reply. I agree that overlap is unavoidable and that there are many reasons to "combine" rather than have two databases, which was why I tried to differentiate between "existing code has a problem" and "future code could improve Koha." My reflections on the matter were prompted by my inability (perhaps I'm missing something?) in Bugzilla to find bugs by "severity." Example, the detailed search for all "major" bugs (in whatever state of advancement barring 'unconfirmed', 'resolved' and 'closed') comes up with 211 results; "critical" is more manageable at 35 results. Add to that the tricky problem of security bugs (publish on knowledge of them? publish when fixed? not publish at all?) My gut feeling is that public discretion is advisable until "sorted out", but I'm not sure what the policy of koha-community might be. Some openness with confirmed sys-admins would surely be a good idea, but there's no "search/system" way at <http://bugs.koha-community.org> e.g it takes a bit of fiddling to find 9569, and I have little or no idea what else there might be (if anything.) Best -- Paul