Talk:Comparison of issue-tracking systems/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope

When I started this article, I was thinking of just ticket-tracking or issue-tracking systems, specifically to the exclusion of the more specialized bug-tracking systems (e.g. Bugzilla), which may be better treated separately. Or maybe just include them all here until the article gets big enough to split apart. —Fleminra 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Remedy

Added a row for Remedy (very commonly-used trouble-ticketing system). Now needs to be populated with data. --69.140.157.138 04:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think BMC bought Remedy's system. At any rate, we should add BMC Service Desk Express to the list. --dsleeter 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a row for BMC Service Desk Exprress --ronsorrell 02:00 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I use it daily, I probably should fill in the row. --Waveclaw 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue tracking vs. bug tracking

Most of the systems that exist till date either cater to normal issue tracking or bug tracking. Thats is why it is okay to have two categories: one Issue tracking and other bug tracking. What about the system that cater to both ([tBits] for example)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha0 (talk • contribs) 21:10, August 8, 2006.

I was thinking that the capabilities of an "issue-tracking" system are roughly a subset of the capabilities of a "bug-tracking" system; i.e. bug trackers are a specialization of issue trackers. If that's true, one could use any of the bug trackers for tracking "issues" (e.g. for a help desk), so all of the table rows for bug trackers could be duplicated in the issue-tracking group. Anyway, among all of these systems, I only know Bugzilla really well, so maybe that explains my viewpoint. I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. —Fleminra 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct but to certain extent. To fit any bug tracking system into another issue tracking or ticketing system, the system should support extending the fields and modifying the workflow. Which I think only few bug tracking systems support. As far as I understand Bugzilla allows configuring field and roles but not the workflow. tBits which we have recently developed is one such system allows desiging new workflows too. The core of the system doesnt have any fields and workflow. It can be configured so that it can be used in any kind of workflow management solution.
My question still remains: Should we include such systems in both the categories or should we create a separate category called "Both"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha0 (talk • contribs) 20:15, August 11, 2006.
As I think about it, it might be better to do away with the "bug tracker" or "issue tracker" classification altogether, and just add columns to indicate whether each product implements the features that make the product suitable for one purpose or another. E.g., it might be nice to have a column for "customizable workflow." (I believe you are correct about Bugzilla — the only way to add workflow stages is to change the source code; otherwise additional workflow steps pretty much have to be simulated using the "flags" mechanism.) —Fleminra 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. I don't think we need two seperate categories here, and having columns detailing a few main features (bug tracking, etc) would make it much easier to read/compare solutions. If bug tracking systems need a more detailed comparison, maybe that should be under a seperate article. —Beethoven05 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has just stumbled across this article, looking for comparisons, I think that adding an extra section 'Combined Issue/Bug tracking' or the like would be useful. Just my two cents worth. Evolve2k 22-08-2006
The more I think about this, but better I think it would be to remove dedicated bug tracking products from this article and move them to their own comparison article. Bug tracking is a specific subset of issue tracking that has its own set of features to be compared. Items which do both should be left on the list. Is this kind of the consensus that has been reached? Beethoven05 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The table has grown to become unwieldy. —Fleminra 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree: At issue: We need a customer "issue" system; if it results in a bug (high probability) then it needs to be converted into a bug. It would be nice to NOT have two different systems to perform this task. YES -- but (defect) has it's own set of requirements, however - "issue tracking" and "Bug tracking" are hopelessly tied together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.61.32.30 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Picket to ticket tracking systems

One of the main goal for Picket is to provide two way email integration. But Picket is Bug Tracker still. It is sad that i couldn't accent on Picket email integration in Bug trackers section.--Serge Matveenko (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

tBits removal

Why tBits has been removed? tBits does contain the external links but there are still others having external links and I think this place provides a great info to an end user by providing the various avaible systems at single page and this comparision proves highly useful to an individual evaluating the various products. Let the wiki not present the incomplete information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.163.239.59 (talk • contribs) 18:01, August 21, 2006.

I suppose for the same reason that the tBits article was deleted (see deletion discussion). Personally, I would let entries on comparison articles such as this one stand on their absolute technical merits and not on their popularity, but I'm probably in the minority with that opinion. —Fleminra 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed tBits because it was part of a pattern of edits that is consistent with self-promotion of a company. Wikipedia works best when edits are made by neutral third parties, not by editors with a self-interest in the organization. A small set of editors has been basically adding only tBits links to a variety of articles and as well as creating the deleted article. This behaviour is typical of someone attempting to promote a business or trying to improve the search engine rank of a non-notable corp and is inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. The company and anonymous IPs that edit on its behalf all trace to India. Coincidence? I'm about to take an extended break from Wikipedia, so other editors here will need to determine if self-interest edits are acceptable in this article, or not. JonHarder 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support Flemira. This table should present various systems available in market and let the user decide which one to pick. We can have a qualification criteria. For example, a system that can not fill more than 5 columns should be removed. If we just base our judgement on google's search result, we would be killing perfect competition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha0 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Additional columns

Pro's to more columns: the table is more useful. Con's: the more out-of-date the data could potentially become. With that in mind, potential columns that could be added: ( - Michael 06:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) )

  • As mentioned above, the "issue tracking" and/or "bug tracking" shouldn't be a separate list, but rather an additional column as to whether or not the software could be used for issues, and/or bugs (perhaps just a single column, with multiple values allowed: { issues, defects, ...?} . It's rarely bugs XOR issues.
  • How about a column for the home page of the software package...!?!? How could that be overlooked? I guess "googling it" truly has become ubiquitous...

-Is this still a valid question for another column? Seems to me like the information is in the System/Creator columns, where available?

  • Software release version (especially valuable to compare if some software is at version 7.9 vs. version beta-19, etc.)
  • Email Integration: Since the success of such systems largely depends on ease of use, the email integration becomes quite important. If I have to open browser and then login and then go through couple of screens just for logging a small bug "label's color need to be fixed.", I would prefer fixing the bug instead of logging it. And if I can just drop an email to a particular address, it would be a breeze. To update an issue, if I can just reply to the notification mail, it makes my life easier. Most of the systems I have used so far provide one way (means notifications) but only few provide both ways integration. In my personal experience, both-way email integration increases the productivity a lot and makes such systems quite useful. So, I added a column called 'Email Integration'.
  • I'd suggest a column "Appliance available"? This makes testing much, much easier and faster, since some of these systems are a female dog(...) to set up. If you then discover it doesn't suit your taste/needs/whatever, you wasted a lot of time, so being able to test (or adapt) from a running system in a virtual machine saves a lot of nerves.

More about additional columns

Here's another comparison chart, with some different ideas about what columns are important.

http://geekswithblogs.net/flanakin/articles/CompareWebTrackers.aspx

I added the column "Unicode Support" to this article.

Ctrager 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

3 more commenrcial ones

3 more commercial ones are listed here, i will add them when i get a chance --phalseid 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the Source code revision control system integration" column

We have looked at this table for a product evaluation. We find that the "Source code revision control system integration" column is very misleading. First "integration" can mean a lot of things and should be defined. It can be a very basic linking mechanism, or it can be a very integrated system with change set attached to bugs, approval (the code is only commited in the SCM trunk when the bug is closed, etc..). Then, practically, the information is far from accurate. For example, for Bugzilla, the integration with "CVS, Subversion, Perforce" only exist with third-party project such a scmbug, which is far from mature, and difficult to deploy. I think that this column should:

  • mention how the integration can be done (third-party module, integrated plugin...)
  • mention the level of integration it provides. Something very simple like three level (tight/loose/minimal for example) would probably be enough.

I even wonder if that column shouldn't be removed entirely. (Farialima 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

I wonder whether this would be possible in the existing tables at all; but it should be easy to have a section on a page discussing aspects of trackers (see below). --Tobias 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Added FSF's GNATS

I added a skeleton of an entry for the FSF's GNATS bugtracker. Would someone who knows more about GNATS internals please flesh it out. Frotz 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison by aspects

What does the community think about accompanying this page by a page comparing bug/issue trackers by certain aspects, possibly without using tables at all? E.g. like this:

Workflow

(Some gibberish about workflow...)

Bugzilla
has a very elaborated workflow, including verification ("VERIFIED FIXED") and different resolutions ("RESOLVED DUPLICATE")
Roundup (issue tracker)
has by default (classic template) a quite simple workflow, which can be hand-tailored using so-called "detectors"
a simple fixed workflow
is used by... (list of names and/or links)

E-Mail interface

Trackers can provide the possibility to be used via e-mail clients:

  • Issues can be created or modified via mail
  • Users can be notified of changes
  • The tracker can answer to queries sent to it via mail

The mail interface (or mail gateway) is considered complete when it provides all features of the system.

(... maybe a table...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TobiasHerp (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

SCM integration

Some trackers provide varying levels of integration of Source Code Management systems, e.g. Subversion or CVS (... description of possibilities, and maybe a table...)

(End of example)

That way, many aspects one might be interested in could be handled without introducing a new table column each time. Of course, this would be selective, with the most information given by the most active projects/user communities, and thus automatically be more useful than two quite large lists with some entries with unsure classification. --Tobias 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the article already have email integration and workflow information? jbolden1517Talk 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ubuntu launchpad

somehow im missing this in the list or does it not fit?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.61.216.36 (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Launchpad.net is used by considerably more than just Ubuntu. That said, neither it nor Sourceforge.net are listed here because both are services rather than applications, per my understanding. Not to say that they shouldn't be listed - the WP:LEAD is unclear on this point, although no other services like this seem to be listed or, in the current tables, compatible. MrZaiustalk 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic?

Sorry, but I really don't think so. This would make a great webpage somewhere, but Wikipedia should not be a shopping comparison tool in my opinion. FunnyYetTasty 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a handful of other editors that share your views, and a fair number that believe that these articles are legitimate implementations of Wikipedia:Lists. Operating by consensus, they're not going away any time soon. My personal feeling is that there's little to nothing wrong with 'em, but the category requires considerably more effort to purge spam. See the AfD and resulting RfCs and Village Pump posts that grew out of Comparison of time tracking software. MrZaiustalk 06:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Scarab

Scarab is issue tracking software. And it highly customizable. It also provide full unicode support and i10n. In future version and also in trunk, there is LDAP Auth compabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.141.94 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if some one can also compare java based itracker and jtrac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.147.254 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Drupal modules

Case Tracker

This module enables teams to track outstanding cases which need resolution. It provides e-mail notifications to participants about updates to cases and is similar to many issue tracking systems. This is a rewrite of the project.module and is very similar to that module but varies in important ways. The project.module is specific to software development and the need for a more generic issue tracker has been expressed. As such, the casetracker.module only includes relevant functionality, but also uses regular Drupal comments and integrates with Views, Organic Groups, Mailhander, CCK, XML-RPC, and more.
http://drupal.org/project/casetracker

Project

This module provides project management for Drupal sites. Projects are generally assumed to represent software that has source code, releases, and so on. This module provides advanced functionality for browsing projects, optionally classifying them with a special taxonomy, and managing downloads of different versions of the software represented by the projects. It is used to provide the downloads pages for Drupal.org.
http://drupal.org/project/project

Project issue tracking

This module provides issue tracking for projects created with the project module. It allows users to submit issues (bug reports, feature requests, tasks, etc) and enables teams to track their progress. It provides e-mail notifications to members about updates to items. Similar to many issue tracking systems. You can see it in action at http://drupal.org/project/issues .
http://drupal.org/project/project_issue

Drupal is open-source software distributed under the GPL ("General Public License") and is maintained and developed by a community of thousands of users and developers. Drupal is free to download and use.

--jwalling 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing:

Or am I too stupid to find them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.98.185 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup urgently needed on this article

This list at the moment consists mainly of a list of products which have not asserted notability in WP articles, or been deleted following an attempt at an article. Out of 83 entries (including one duplicate), only 23 have an article. At the moment this is masked by the use of external links for all most product entries, and these product links are often duplicated in the creator column. In the issue tracking section:

In the bug tracking section:

My two attempts to clean this up have been reverted, so I'm bringing the discussion from the edit summaries to the talk page where it belongs. If the products are notable, then they deserve their own articles, or at least a redlink placeholder until an article get written. But at the moment this is sort of an Issue Tracker Elephants Graveyard, where deleted tracker articles go to die. It'll need a good scrub to turn it from a link farm into a WP article. Technobadger (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that states that every piece of software in a software comparison article must be notable? In fact, I've seen suggestions that articles on non-notable topics be merged into other articles instead of deleted altogether, which suggests the reverse - that an item does not have to be notable to be discussed.—greenrd (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's true that Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. But this isn't a case of some non-notable content added to a list of mainly notable content. In fact, the reverse is true here: 83 items, of which only 23 have demonstrated notability.
It's mainly the external links that I'm objecting to. Redlinks to products whose notability is as yet unproven would be better than what's here now, in fact I tried that in these edits yesterday, and they were immediately reverted. Technobadger (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the "83 items, of which only 23 have demonstrated notability". Those are very precise numbers. Could you define what criteria you used to make that determination? I wonder if, if you specified your criteria, I could then go through the list and pretty much pick the same 23? Ctrager (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm broadly in favour of deletion of almost anything from a list which doesn't have its own article. If you're feeling generous, make them redlinks instead, but you've got my support for just deleting them. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Replaced external links with wikilinks. Some of the remaining redlinks should be re-evaluated for notability, especially the entries above which were previously determined to be non-notable. Technobadger (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding being "broadly in favour of deletion of almost anything from a list which doesn't have its own article", that seems to imply that the authority for determining whether something is notable is... Wikipedia itself. Huh? Wikipedia's determines notability based on... Wikipedia articles? Ctrager (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the guy who twice reverted the destruction of the external links, and I'm going to do it again. My understanding of the WP guidelines is that are open ended enough to support the inclusion of the external links. So, why then choose to be destructive? Who gains by that? Why destroy information that people are finding useful? How about a constructive solution? How about adding another column for the wiki link? Not only would that be a non-destructive solution, it would also help visually distinguish the so-called notable trackers from the so-called non-notable trackers.
Speaking of notability. What constitutes notability for issue tracking software? (And don't use the existence of a Wikipedia article about the tracker as evidence - that would be tautological). Bugzilla is historic, venerable, but besides that, what? FogBugz is kind of notable, because Joel is notable. "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." How does one apply that to bug/issue tracking software? What sources? Slashdot?
This WP page is just a chart. It's not an article. "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Nobody is breaking a rule here by adding less familiar trackers to list with external links, so please stop destroying information.Ctrager (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_tracking_system, which links to this page, lists links for exactly two systems: Bugzilla and....Jira. What makes Jira so "notable" as compared to, say, Mantis, Trac, FogBugz, or even Sourceforge?Ctrager (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Ctrager, would you by any chance be Corey Trager, author of BugTracker.net, as externally linked in Comparison of issue tracking systems#Bug tracking systems? A quick browse through Special:Contributions/Ctrager indicates that you are chiefly interested in bug tracking systems, and in BugTracker.net in particular. The last time the matter of your linking to your own product site came up, in User_talk:S.K.#Edits_in_Bug_tracking_system_article, your understanding of the guidelines on external links seems to have been in line with mine. Why the different stance on this article?
No, there are no hard and fast rules being broken here. Wikipedia mostly works by guidelines and consensus, and the best use of external links is rightly a matter for ongoing debate. But your latest reversion has turned this article back into a spam page, a list consisting of three-quarters products which offer no evidence for their notability. Using the continued existence of a WP page as supporting evidence for notability is not tautological, though using it as an exclusive rule would be. When articles are deleted, the resulting redlinks normally get removed from other articles (though I tried to leave them alone here). This makes their existence a useful rule of thumb for notability, on the understanding that non-notable content will slowly get weeded out over time. Conversely, their prior deletion, and especially multiple deletions for non-notability, is useful evidence indicating non-notability. Using external links to bypass that process seems unfair.
There seems to to be a WP:Conflict of interest here. Technobadger (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am interested in bug tracking system. I would think that most contributors to WP articles are people who are especially interested in the topic that they are contributing too, right? Regarding conflict of interest, first of all, I'm campaigning for all the links, not just mine. Second, BugTracker.NET is free and open source, so I gain nothing if people choose to use it except the satisfaction of helping somebody. It's exactly the same motivation that makes me want to keep the external links on this page: because I *KNOW* they are helping people. On my website, I provide information that helps people learn about other trackers. I have even published glowing reviews of other trackers, like FogBugz, for example. What you call a conflict-of-interest, is simply... interest. I am interested in this topic. And I am interested in helping people. Can you see the difference between conflict-of-interest and interest?
I have NOT created a WP article about my own tracker. That would be a conflict of interest for sure.
Please read through this discussion here and you'll find that I have written in several places asking you to explain what constitutes "evidence of notability" for an issue tracker. I'm asking again. Teach me how I can evaluate an issue tracker and determine whether it is notable or not. Your claim that the existence of an WP article *IS* evidence of notability begs the question, what is the evidence of notability that allows that article about an individual tracker to exist in the first place, so it is a tautology for a WP article to use the existence of a WP article as evidence of notability. Imagine WP with no articles about trackers, and somebody tasked with creating a list of notable trackers. How would that person go about it? Using what sources? What criteria?
Finally, what is wrong with the constructive solution I proposed of adding an extra column so that there could be both the external and WP links? Ctrager (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created an article for Debbugs, and I'll now write an entry for BugTracker.NET, as I think it's notable. Feel free to expand it with as much WP:NPOV material as you've got, and I'll try to keep adding to it. If we're wrong, then it will get deleted. I'll be sure to include external links there. Technobadger (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the BugTracker.NET article. Still, you haven't answered my question about how one goes about determining notability for an issue tracker. Also, I still don't agree with your personal interpretation of WP policy regarding this page. This page is not really an article, it's a list, meant to be useful. Maybe the whole page doesn't really belong in WP, but it's not hurting anybody and I'm just not wired to be destructive. I know this page - with the links - helps people and that matters to me. Again, adding an additional column seems like a win/win, so could you please at least comment on that proposal? Ctrager (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop repeatedly reverting my edits while we're discussing this, and especially stop reverting with blank edit summaries.
Please stop replacing wikilinks like Rational Software and Debbugs with external links.
Please stop accusing editors you disagree with of "choosing to be destructive". An edit you disagree with is not "destruction".
Please stop asking me to define precise rules for notability. There are obviously no hard and fast rules for notability, and you seem to be asking in an attempt to prove that all non-notable content that you happen to like is therefore OK here. It isn't. Please re-read WP:Notability. If you can find any supporting evidence for a product's notability, then cite it. I have demonstrated a reasonable example of citing sources supporting notability when I created BugTracker.NET yesterday: please have a look at that. It only took me an hour to create the article and find those supporting sources.
This will have to go to dispute resolution, if you insist on starting a pointless edit war. Technobadger (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I give up. Some (maybe) final words.
Sorry about the blank edit summaries. That's carelessness and inexperience on my part. (Wouldn't it be better if WP made it a required field?)
You deleted information that I and many others took the time to enter into WP and that I and others have found useful, helpful. It's not an accusation; it's documented in the history of this article and in references to this page that others on the web have made. I restored what you deleted, and then you deleted what I restored. I don't question your motives or integrity. Maybe the consensus of WP editors would agree with you.
Regarding how to establish notability for an issue tracking system, I kept asking because nobody answered. I don't see what's wrong with asking? The dispute resolution policy you refer to encourages exactly that kind of discourse. I did look at the sources you used to justify the notability of my own tracker and I mentally tried to abstract your choices into some guidelines one could use to apply generally. The following is not meant to be critical of what you wrote in the BugTracker.NET article. I think you did a good job. But, here were my thoughts when reading the references: 1) A irony is that one of the references is Secunia, listing some security vulnerabilities in my tracker. So, if I had been a better programmer, my tracker would escaped notice by Secunia, and would thereby be less notable. Luckily, I'm a sloppy programmer. 2) Another reference mentions integration with CruiseControl.NET. I was unaware of that work and I've never used CruiseControl.NET. 3) Another reference is from a some blogger (a couple dozen bloggers have written about my tracker). That makes me think that notability is kind of like a human version of Google page rank: Number of links weighted by the perceived importance of the sources?
The WP policy on notability applies only to the existence of an article, not the content of an article. And this "article", this list of issue trackers, is a very strange article. One could argue that as a whole, it doesn't belong in WP. But, since it is helpful, I have no desire to destroy it for the sake of strict adherence to WP policy. The fact that it's useful and helps people is meaningful to me personally. Ctrager (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of systems

The article includes plenty of entries where both the vendor and the system itself are redlinks (or, even worse, external links). The general rule for articles like this is that all entries should have a Wikipedia article; a minimum requirement should be that either the software or the vendor should have an article. Leaving the entries as they are for a bit to allow people to weigh in. --Bonadea (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I like how this works. Some editor tags an existing article about a piece of good software for "speedy deletion", such as, say, Eventum, an open source issue tracking software, citing the policy about "notability" - while apparently being oblivious to the fact that the policy specifically states that it does not apply to articles about software - and so the article vanishes. And then here for the issue tracking software comparison we have people saying "The general rule for articles like this is that all entries should have a Wikipedia article; a minimum requirement should be that either the software or the vendor should have an article." Isn't this what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy? Clearly there is some sense of order that needs to coalesce out of the conflict of what belongs and what doesn't, but following catch-22 rules on the basis of ignorance is not the way to do it people. Greeneto (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing all entries that do not have an article. One of the main purpose of a list is as an overview towards navigation. A list containing red links does not provide the reader a way to find further info. Direct external links are just asking for spam, so the best way is to link to internal articles. I'm strongly in favour though of software having it's own article, although there are those who like to delete software, as has evidently happened to a lot of articles on this list.
A further problem with a comparison such as this is that none of the data is cited. With not even any internal articles to follow up, the data is unreliable.
As the guidelines say, However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space.
I've been removing red links from other comparison/list articles, but will wait for further feedback here, since it seems people have tried in the past and been reverted with this particular article. Greenman (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm for removing all entries that don't have their own articles, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No other comments, so I'll start removing some non-notables, starting with the most obviously non-notable. :) Greenman (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the initiative, I endorse it fully. This article is verging on uselessness with all the non-notables. Haakon (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Your 'cleaning up' of the articles have removed a lot of useful content. While I appreciate that you don't personally care about anything that doesn't sell a million copies a year, the rest of us do. A lot of the systems you removed bear mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.29.169 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My personal likes and the sales volumes don't matter that much. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia primarily for the benefit of its readers, and the guidelines state that entries should be notable. Greenman (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Color Printing not working

I have tried many different methods to get your color comparison table to work on my color printer and I always get the same results - B&W. I can print other color docs and websites so it must be on the article's end. Could someone have embedded invisible text that turns off the color? I really like your table and would like to be able to print it in color. --216.37.174.132 (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

InformUp

I've renamed A.InformUp to InformUp.

The website indicates that the product is really called InformUp. The "A." at the begining appears to be used on this page to get a higher listing. TylerM89 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Added four missing systems

I've just added four missing systems, just name and license type. The rows need to be completed but links are correct. Please, do not delete but complete them. I put also a link to the wikipedia license page and I'm rather confused about commercial vs. proprietary terms. Whould be the case to use just one (from the previus mentioned page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.121.11 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Project metrics?

I would be interested to see which Issue Tracking Systems can provide project metrics, and what exactly these metrics are composed of for each system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.118.1 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Addition

I would like to know if someone who is impartial (I am obviously not being from the company that creates the product) could review our product www.opscotch.com and add it to the list if appropriate. Thank you. Opscotch (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic documentation integration/generation column

I've tried to clean up this article as much as possible by moving some information to new tables (= easier and cleaner lookup) and removing superfluous details from the old features table. However, there is one column remaining that still needs a LOT of work.

The "Dynamic documentation integration/generation" column is a complete mess full of random features of each piece of software. Tables aren't meant to contain a whole load of text, it defeats the purpose of them. We really need to remove this column completely and add either new tables or columns to cover some of the following features that are currently prevalent in this column:

  • Wiki integration
  • Graphic outputs
    • Gantt charts
    • Critical path diagrams
    • Relationship graphs (showing inter-connectivity between issues)
    • Statistical graphs (number of issues at each stage of the workflow, etc)
    • Burndown charts
  • Reporting (I'm not sure how to define this... it's quite vague... but it'd cover features such as daily "what was completed today", "things due tomorrow" emails being sent automatically. It'd also cover the ability for people to generate reports/lists of what work was done in a day by a developer, issues matching a certain filter criteria, etc.)
  • Export types
    • CSV
    • XML
    • PDF
    • Print
    • etc
  • Import types
    • CSV
    • XML
    • etc

Any thoughts on how to proceed? Michigangold (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-Notables not to go in this list!?

The recent initiative to delete all "non-notables" from this list goes in the wrong direction. While the dedication of an entire Wikipedia-article to a software does require an over-threshold "notability" (leaving aside the question of whether and how notability can be defined, and whether it is objective etc.), the mere mention of software in another article (or addition of such software to a table) should - under the condition that all information entered into the table is sourced - have a lower' "notability" threshold than that required for having its own article. The recent edits here put this quite upside-down, quite contrary to common (Wikipedia-)sense.

Alternative proposal: if all information relevant to the table is known and the software is generally available commercially and regularly maintained, then it is worth putting an entry in the table.

For example, in concrete terms, I remembered having read recently on Wikipedia that the software package "DoneDone" had version control plus tagging. So I tried to find this statement back... and helas I had to revert to a pre-November-2009 version of this article to find it again! In my case at least, this "cleaning up" of the article has destroyed useful information, making it available only for those who remember earlier versions of the article. I strongly suggest to re-introduce those software packages into this list for which the relevant information is available and can be sourced. --Chris Howard (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing non-notables from lists is standard across software lists like this, and is based partly on WP:WTAF. Having large numbers of additions to lists that are not notable makes the page difficult to read, less useful for readers, and an outlet for spam. Greenman (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Trying to understand, then (and asking the community, not necessarily any one editor): if I'm contemplating adding an entry for a tracker provided by my company, do I (a) not, due to conflict of interest, (b) WTAF for the product itself, then add, (c) add with redlinks to a product page, or (d) add with external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrepenning (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
See WP:CONFLICT and WP:WTAF. In the case of c) and d), the entry will be removed. Greenman (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree which Chris here. This list contains a lot of so called notables when they are clearly not if you look at their article. However, by allowing only so called notables in here you a) provide an incomplete list b) provide the so called big companies such IBM, MS, HP etc... an unfair advantage! Maybe this page should not be here at all?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If any of the entry's articles are not notable, you're welcome to propose them for deletion. And if you think this article shouldn't be here, you can propose it for deletion too, though I disagree, as it is useful! There's no unfair advantage to big companies, the criteria for notability apply to all products equally. Greenman (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue around providing so called big companies an unfair advantage is down to the fact that you just look at general notability as per your quick google search whereas may be we need to deem notability within their specific industry. GENERAL NOTABILITY (google search) is not the same as industry (peer) notability (in top 50 google organic search on "issue tracking"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you are applying general notability and not notability within the industry. If a user comes to this page, clearly they only care about notable companies (products) for issue tracking. Therefore, you should determine notability by searching on "issue tracking" and looking at the first 5 pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 11:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're referring to with the comment your quick google search, but the notability guidelines are quite clear at Wikipedia:Notability and any refinements should be taken up there. Greenman (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the no-notables discussion misses the point. We are talking about a comparison of existing software packages in usage in the real world. Such a list, as long as it includes all details in an objective manner, and is backed up with specific wiki-articles for each item in the list, is useful for acquiring knowledge about the computing world, which is the main purpose of computing articles in wikipedia, as far as my understanding goes. Any other policy would create discrimination against some product(s), and a distortion of the image of the knowledge of products in the field, as presented in wikipedia. Furthermore, it may become a tool for unfair competition between software makers, trying to undermine the notability of their competitors. I believe that comparing this article to other computing comparison lists, such as Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems or Comparison_of_free_software_hosting_facilities would make my point clear. at the moment these comparison lists are not managed under the same policy. and that must be resolved. --77.127.118.245 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the list will be long, and will be backed up by Wikipedia articles for each item in the list. The notability guidelines are objective, and are meant to stop Wikipedia being clogged with low quality articles about people's pet projects, or using Wikipedia to promote their company's software. If the product needs marketing, it will be marketed and become notable in the rest of the world, not by using Wikipedia. I agree that there are many articles that are low quality and don't adhere to Wikipedia standards, just as there are more that do, such as Comparison of project management software, Comparison of web application frameworks and Comparison of wiki software. Greenman (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Team Foundation Server

Team Foundation Server does integrated with Revision Control, it has it's own internal system, so the No across this line is deceptive. -- the previous comment was placed by 64.207.45.53 at 2010-06-03T10:28:28 PDT

That doesn't appear to be a complete thought. Maybe it's just bad grammar and spelling, but I don't know if I understand what you're writing so forgive me if I don't understand you. Do you mean it integrates with revision control? If so, it's not at all deceptive since the columns are Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, Monotone, Darc, CVS,Subversion, Perforce, AccuRev, ClearCase, and Others. It doesn't natively If it integrates with VSS or its own internal system (which you would have to explain in detail) you could add a yes to Others and cite what it integrates with. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP-IssueTracker

I just released a wordpress plugin that is essentially an issue tracking system, yet not a standalone app. Not sure if it belongs to this list or not, but here's a link to it: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wp-issuetracker/ Kamasheto (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

It would really be extremly helpful to have list Top 10 list of the software system. It is quite clear that it will not be possible to have a objective list but the list is to long to test all of the systems so a little help would be much appreciated at which systems to look first! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.11.20 (talk • contribs) 07:38, November 16, 2006 (UTC)

None of the tables indicate whether each system is available only as an on-line service, installable on your own servers or both. akaihola (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RT from Best Practical

I'm very surprised that one of the most traditional players isn't listed here: RT. I've been using RT since the XX century. It's open source. It's highly extensible. I've integrated it with several other systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.18.218.123 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

JTrac

JTrac, which is an open source issue tracker, can be included in this comparison page. See JTrac for more information. WarFox (talk | contribs) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

License

I've noticed it on both here and Comparison of project management software: why does the License column make references to SaaS and hosted? How do these relate to licensing (open source, proprietary, etc.)? Chilblane (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why BugNET, such a cool issue-tracking tool, not appears on this list?

I found BugNET to be a very cool & FREE issue tracking tool! But looking at this wikipedia's Issue-Tracking Comparison List, I cannot find BugNET.

And my question is: Why BugNET is not in the list?

ps. Even updated recently in 2011, wikipedia drop BugNET out of the list :( while BugNET appeared since 2010. Please see below facts for the time.

02 Nov 2010 BugNET 1st blog entry

01 Apr 2011 Latest update revision of the wikipedia list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namgivu (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Feature: Indexed Full text search

I would like to know what issue-tracking systems have Indexed Full text search and what not. Should I add a column to Features table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.37.19 (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. You'll be adding a lot of unknown to the column. Not suew what you mean by whatnot though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I filled Full-text search support for most well known issue trackers. I expect the rest will either not have Indexed Full-text search or no Full-text search at all. If any of you guys have experience with any issue tracker not filled yet and you know their Indexed Full-text search please fill in since I probably continue filling in at a slower pace as info for the less know issue trackers are harder to get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.153.245 (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Launchpad needed

Launchpad needs to be listed as one of the bug trackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreyfishing (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It has an article, so someone who knows the details about the product should add it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Indefero needed

Indefero needs to be listed as well.209.33.201.114 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not worry, you can add it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.153.245 (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new here and I dont understand why our changes are removed

We are trying to update this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems, to include our software solution because most of our competitors are on here and our entries keep being removed. The explanation is something about "only products with articles can be posted, not companies trying to sell products." My question then is, why are most of our competitors on here and why is the description of the page simply a comparison between issue tracking systems? We are entering in the details of our system just like everyone else. What are we doing differently than everyone else that our information is being removed? Thanks. Criscoff (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The message above was left on my talk page and belongs here. Moving.
The policies around lists starts to discuss the nature of lists, but in short, lists are not to be a random collection of links. In order to guarantee this we try to ensure that the products are notable. The easiest way of defining that is to have an article on Wikipedia. I see that another editor has just informed you of that on your talk page.
In a different vein, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your product. I'll leave a menu of articles to help you get started in editing appropriately on Wikipedia. If you have any questions about this list and your company's place in it, ask it here. If you have general questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask it on your talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok I see. I am sorry. I didn't realize the external links would cause that problem. I will just let the entries link to the wikipedia page about our company as the other vendors have done. Thank you. Criscoff (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Other vendors have done this? I may have to review the list to prune those out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus links to their wikipedia page from their listing here. All I want to do is have our software listed here with the others. How can I do this? I just added it again without any external links and it was removed again.Criscoff (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All you want to do is violate WP:SPAM guidelines. At the very least you're a single purpose editor. Please create an article for your product and if it's still around six weeks after creation, add it here. I'll remove entries that don't link to an article about the product and only link to company articles. I'll clear-up the remainder of the list to see if there are redirects or links to articles that are not products. I'll deal with this low-hanging fruit first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoho BugTracker remove from the comparison page

Zoho BugTracker is one of the services in Zoho Office Suite. Is there anything I am missing in the addition? I got the below comment for the removal.

06:03, 7 November 2011‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ (55,196 bytes) (Zoho is not supported by the article or a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohobugtracking (talk • contribs)

Yes, you're missing a reference or material at the article. Google also doesn't support the assertion so it needs verification. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. Linking to the FAQ isn't necessary. I have found http://www.zoho.com/bugtracker/ based on the FAQ's URL. A reference to a third-party source would be preferable.
How is this related to the Zoho Office Suite? Why doesn't the article mention it? I would feel more comfortable if either the bug tacker had its own article or had an entry in the office suite article, particularly if you're linking to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I am adding an external reference. If this is ok, I can proceed with the other updates. Already I have added Zoho Bugtracker in the Zoho Office Suite. Zoho BugTracker is one of the applications (new) from Zoho Office Suite. - Zohobugtracking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohobugtracking (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good, and will make more sense.Millertime246 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It is against the external links guidelines and I have removed it. The specific guideline is
Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
For this article that would be a general discussion of issue-tracking systems or another list. The way to add the Zoho BugTracker is either to create an article about it or have a section added to the other article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added Zoho BugTracker in the Zoho Office Suite Article. Can I proceed with the submission of my service in the comparison? Saravanan 18:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Zohobugtracking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohobugtracking (talk • contribs)
" Just to clarify, I'm not a moderator or an admin and I certainly don't own the page. I just know a bit about policy and procedure. You definitely don't have to ask my permission add material. I saw that you added unreferenced material to the article, but that article is already lacking. Feel free to add a link to the article as that is, according to my understanding of notability, sufficient for inclusion. It wouldn't hurt if the Zoho Office Suite article was improved with references though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Include SourceForge?

Is there any particular reason SourceForge is not included? I once worked in a company where we used a commercial version of SourceForge for issue-tracking. The open source version also appears to include this; from SourceForge.net: Find, create, and publish Open Source software for free:

"Tickets. ... Bugs, enhancements, tasks, etc. will help you plan and manage your development."

--Mortense (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Zoho Support has SLA

I just wanted to note that Zoho Support appears to have SLA support now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.166.197 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

HP ALM vs HP QC

Walter, I'm referring to Comparison of issue-tracking systems and my recent changes you undid.
May I know why you think there is still HP QC product?
I've been working for HP for more than 8 years and for couple of last years working on HP ALM (the new name of HP QC) and I know how it can be confusing.
The very last version of HP QC/ALM that was released under HP QC name was HP QC 10. From HP ALM 11 on, this product is just called HP ALM.
Please, refer to [HP ALM update site], there are used the correct names for each of the product version.
Regards,
Pepan0 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear in my edit summary: it's part of the product suite. You're suggesting that just because Quality Center has been rolled into Application Lifecycle Management that the product suite should suddenly take precedence over the product itself. What you're suggesting is that Microsoft Office should take the place of Microsoft Word in the comparison of word processors. Granted, Word can be purchased unbundled and QC can't, but that doesn't change the fact that QC is part of a bundle. In short, this list is about issue-tracking systems not about product suites that include them and we're not limited to the marketing department of any company. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of table headings

It's not clear what some of the headings on the tables mean - there needs to be a legend or some explanation. For example, what does GUI imply? Almost all issue tracking software has a GUI but are we talking about a native Windows GUI? Or administration GUI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factyou (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Include Open-source "Bug Genie"

Include mature, open-source issue-tracking system http://www.thebuggenie.com/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.120.126 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Only products with articles are included. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If "only products with articles" is a criteria for being included in the list (who made that decision?), then this criteria should appear in the article. Dan Aquinas (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason NOT to include the BugGenie. If someone were reviewing this article to help make a decision then they would completely miss it simply because the product doesn't have a Wikipedia article. I think the excuse of "only products with articles" is a poor one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugherd include

I work for Bugherd, so I don't really want to create a page my self, so I thought maybe someone interested in this topic would consider Bugherd for inclusion? Someone other than me might be better at finding some less positive refs also. If the page gets created I could help add in the facts about what features it has? BugHerd is a web-based issue tracking application used for communicating between teams and clients, BugHerd does this by means of a widget that is embeded into a website which creates an overlay which can then be used to pin tasks to the page element in question. BugHerd also has an admin interface which is used to tracking tasks, deligation, priority and status. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Icollectstickers (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Convert from refs to links. The only good reference is from http://www.smh.com.au/. There's a tool to help with article creation requests: Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Alternately, you could request one be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles. You might want to look at the notability guidelines first to determine if Bugherd qualifies. --

Suggestion to include: Apache Bloodhound

I'm a contributor to the Apache Bloodhound project, so I would not like to make these changes myself, but I would like to suggest that it's worth including Bloodhound on these pages. It is based on Trac, but differences will be especially evident in the features table, since we're in the last stages of introducing full-text search and multi-project/product support. Jdreimann (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Eventum (mysql's bug tracker) may be included

Eventum, the mysql's bug tracker is actually a very nice tracker, which is currently being maintained. Actually, its home is in launchpad.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txomon (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is definitely a noteworthy player. Cornlad (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
You'll notice that all of the entries have articles and Eventum doesn't. Before you create an article for it just to include it here, you should look at the various notability guidelines to determine if it should qualifies for an article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to include: WebIssues

I am a contributor to WebIssues. It is notable because in addition to a web interface it has a very solid cross-platform desktop client. It also supports three different back-end databases. One feature it is missing is an inbound email gateway, however I am currently developing this and it will be released soon. Cornlad (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is notable if it has an article on Wikipedia. That's the criteria used for this list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to mention: Atlassian Bonfire

Atlassian Bonfire seems to be a tool that works with JIRA for better bug raising and exploratory testing. Did not yet test it myself. Dropping this note, if someone knows more... 78.141.139.10 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's just an add-on to JIRA. Until it's written about by a third-party, it makes no sense to discuss it here since that would confirm notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Assembla launch date

Was assembla launched in 2008 as written in this page, or in 2005 as written in Assembla? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.224.47.66 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

to include

osTicket seems worth adding. PHP, GPL. I will investigate it's applicability and add it soon if no one objects. fet mar (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice that the other entries have Wikipedia articles. If it meets the notability guidelines, add an article for it and then add an entry here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki features

I'd like to know which trackers include some wiki features. I know of trac and Google Code. --Nemo 07:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Related: List_of_wiki_software#Project_management_software_with_wiki_functionality. --Nemo 07:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in this too, in a way. I've been looking at the possibility of using mediawiki as an incident management system in a clinical setting. It seems a pretty natural fit, so far, anyway. If somebody else has used it, it'd be good to see how their solution works. Fustbariclation (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Interface technology

Would like to see more information on the technology and framework. Is a web server required, and if so, what is required/supported? And I see one implemented in 'python'... unlikely that it is implemented as a command-line tool: which framework is it using? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Refs column

The "Refs" column in the "General" table doesn't make too much sense because it's unclear where the reference belongs and ref elements can be put after the information without separation in the column which solves the problem. -Zgh (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyspray

Dear Walther Görlitz, why did you just deleted my addition of Flyspray bug tracker? I just added the same information for this bugtracker like the other entries with most accuracy I could accomplish. I'm not quite familiar with wikipedia editing and linking, so just because Flyspray hasn't an own wiki page yet shouldn't be the reason to completely reverting it! Why not fix the entry if I accidently made an error there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.41.225 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As an anonymous editor from Germany, I would expect more from you. I believe that you intentionally misspelled my name to mock me.
I reverted the addition of Flyspray because there's a note that just above the table that you must have read while editing. It reads: "PLEASE DO NOT ADD ENTRIES THAT DO NOT HAVE AN ARTICLE." When you added the entry there was no article. So yes, that is a valid reason to completely revert the addition of an entry without an article. There was no error to fix. After the article was created, it was deleted by another editor for the following reason: "CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance." The problem is that it's not an important piece of software. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not do such things. Its spelled here often with 'h', so I've overseen it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.1.150 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft requesting edits

Hello, my name is Patricia Wagner and I'm an employee of Microsoft. I work in the Cloud+Enterprise division as a content publisher for Visual Studio Team Services, Team Foundation Server, and Application Lifecycle Management products. We are reviewing Wikipedia articles that relate to our areas and would like to update some to better represent the current state and features of our products. Please review the changes below and let me know if they are acceptable to you. Thank you very much for your consideration.

In the "Features" section, please add this entry after "TargetProcess":

Team Foundation Server Yes - workflow definitions, process documentation Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

The internal URL for "Team Foundation Server" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Foundation_Server

After the "Usersnap: entry, please add:
Visual Studio Team Services Yes - workflow definitions, process documentation Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No


In the "Input interfaces" section, after the Usersnap entry, please add:

Visual Studio Team Services Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No


The internal URL for the link text "Visual Studio Team Services" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio#Team_Services



In the "Notification interfaces" section, after the Usersnap entry, please add:

Visual Studio Team Services Yes No No No No


The internal URL for the link text "Visual Studio Team Services" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio#Team_Services


In the "Revision control system integration" section, after the Usersnap entry, please add:

Visual Studio Team Services Yes[74] No Yes[75] No No No Yes[76] No No No Yes - TFS includes revision control


The internal URL for the link text "Visual Studio Team Services" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio#Team_Services

This entry contains links to the "References" section, items 74, 75, and 76
Pat MSFT (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pat MSFT: are all four of those links supposed to be the same? Scarpy (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Scarpy, Thank you for your response. Yes, all four of these links are the same. Regards, Patricia Pat MSFT (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  • ☒N Stale: the issue has been discussed, no clear consensus was reached, and the discussion appears stale by now. Feel free to reopen the request on the article talk page if needed. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Apache Allura Git

Please add the Git tracker of Apaches Allura. https://forge-allura.apache.org/p/allura/git/ci/master/tree/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShalokShalom (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We won't be doing that until it has an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Allura#Version_Control talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's part of another article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ähm, no, this is the own article of Apache Allura.

And read what Allura is, according to their Webpage: "Apache Allura is an open source implementation of a software forge, a web site that manages source code repositories, bug reports, discussions, wiki pages, blogs, and more for any number of individual projects."

Do you kill all the other issue tracking systems as well, which offer more than this feature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShalokShalom (talk • contribs) 10:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't include products without their own articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Apache Allura--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not notable though. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Allura. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a bit unreasonable to say that there is no article when there is one, and then to mark the article that exists as "for deletion" and then claim it's not notable since it's marked for deletion. To some extend I don't case either way, but your approach appears biassed for a reason I fail to understand. FWIW I help on an open source project (LilyPond) that uses Allura to track over 4000 issues.--Phil Holmes (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Marking it for deletion and saying it doesn't exist are two different issues. The latter happened before a link to the article was known. Now that it has one, it can be added pending the outcome of the AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Monorail

Monorail is missing. It's an open source fork of the google code issue tracker from the chromium project. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/infra-dev/OotYpVzgnBw/fAfheRp9BQAJ

--Z855655 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Phabricator is missing from the comparison list

Phabricator has its own Wikipedia article too. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Issue Tracking System vs Helpdesk/Service Desk

Hello Walter, you seem to have reverted my edit on Comparison of issue-tracking systems. The said listing a service desk and should be included in issue tracking system, it's a ticket based helpdek like Freshdesk & Kayako. It should not be listed on Comparison of issue-tracking systems. There is a separate article to compare helpdesks. Aniruddh 11:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this from my talk page because it belongs here. From the way you added the links and did so twice I can tell you're a new editor. The product you removed is also an issue-tracking system. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. Issue/bug tracking system is lot different than a support helpdesk. It rather belongs here: Comparison of help desk issue tracking software and yes, I am a new editor. Aniruddh 18:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Bug tracking is different than support helpdesk software, but they both tack issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Asana

This tracker has a dedicated page, so why is it not in the list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana_(software)

It doesn't claim to be an of issue-tracking system. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing GitLab Issues

Some starter links:

GitLab Community Edition (CE) is an open source end-to-end software development platform with built-in version control, issue tracking, code review, CI/CD, and more. Self-host GitLab CE on your own servers, in a container, or on a cloud provider.

Appears to be implemented mainly in Ruby and Javascript, under an MIT style license. — MaxEnt 12:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Include "ky2help" in list

I have a COI with this topic, but I think ky2help should be included in the list because it has the same notability as some of the other solutions listed in the tables. In Switzerland and the German speaking world ky2help is well established and known by people in service management. It has also been mentioned in international articles.

Thank you for considering the addition. --FreiBollhalder (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-NOV-2019

  Clarification requested  

  • The items on this list appear to be those which are independently notable in Wikipedia. All subjects that are independently notable in Wikipedia have their own articles. If ky2help meets this standard, kindly provide the English language WP:WIKILINK for this subject's article.

Regards,  Spintendo  17:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Input lag / sluggishness

There are bugtracking systems which are quite featureful but they are so sluggish (in their usual deployment) that it seriously impacts usability.

It would be nice if some measure of that would be included in the table, in order to allow project managers to make informed decisions. --62.216.207.186 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that we could quote to determine speed? I don't know know of any such benchmarks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It's nearly impossible to get reliable data about performance. Don't even hope for secondary sources, the only chance is to pick an objective benchmark. It might be possible to pick some standard function and thresholds to test with https://webpagetest.org/ , but that's only for GET, not for more complex things like lag while typing in a textarea. Nemo 21:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems/Archive_1&oldid=1164835776"