> Okay, a couple weeks back, right after we released TG 2.2.0, we
> discovered a few things about the sourceforge system that makes it no
> longer desirable for using as our tracker. We had been thinking of
> using Github back when we switched last year, but (at the time) we
> chose SF.

> Now, we're going to make the switch to Github. I'm in the process of
> writing a migration tool that will copy all the pieces over for us.
> One question, though, has arisen, and this change is both significant
> and inconsequential. All of our previous systems have used one issue
> tracker for the entire project. Github uses one tracker per
> repository, and we have three repositories (core, docs, and
> tutorials). This means that I have to do something different for
> copying ticket information, and I want to ask for feedback before I do
> it. Here's the options:

> 1. Copy every ticket into every repository's issue tracker. Good:
> Ticket numbers are preserved. Bad: Tickets are fully duplicated, which
> could make it difficult for people to track the tickets they genuinely
> care about. Also means we have to close a bunch of them
> inappropriately (a ticket applies only to docs, so it has be closed on
> core and on tutorials).

> 2. Copy only relevant tickets, but use placeholders for non-relevant
> tickets. Good: Ticket numbers are preserved. Bad: Lots of tickets in
> each repository that will read "Placeholder. Please ignore."

> 3. Copy only relevant tickets. Good: Each repository's issues are kept
> to being just the relevant items. Bad: Ticket numbers are not
> preserved.

> I'm leaning towards number three, personally. However, I know that
> there are some people who will prefer (or even demand) one of the
> others, so as to preserve ticket numbering.

> What do you think? Which one would you prefer?