Mozilla's 100,000th Bug

benb writes: "bugzilla.mozilla.org just hit bug 100,000 (cached). This proves its scalability. BugZilla is used to track work on Mozilla. Every change has to have a bug. This includes new features and bugs found by developers/testers during development (bugs that never reached users). We also get a lot of duplicates (which dedicated triagers sort out). So, the number of filed closed bugs cannot be used as criteria of the quality of Mozilla. During usage, BugZilla evolved to a very comfortable web platform for filing/tracking bugs, one that has only very few competition (of which I know). Examples are the emailing and dependency systems. In fact, BugZilla is probably the most important communication medium used in the Mozilla project (apart from the source code itself)."

Bugzilla rocks, indeed.

[rekoil]

My company (a mid-sized national ISP) uses it for internal development/bug tracking. Who else?

Are there any Bugzilla GUIs?

[magi]

I have always found the web interface awfully awkward to use. Are there any frontend client applications for it?

While web interfaces are easy to make and maintain, client apps are usually much more user friendly. Most importantly, they make it possible to add features on the client side without need to modify the web service. That's why we have mail and news clients - web email systems generally suck and are difficult to improve without the involvement of the provider of the server software.

I would imagine that a GUI would be especially useful for the developers, as it could update the bug lists without having to refresh web pages, etc. It could also hold a local copy of the database, for doing searches, etc. Well, on small databases at least.

The GUI could also be integrated to the apps. For example, KDE already has some nice support for sending bug reports from applications, but it could be improved, especially for searching existing bugs. Eliminating the use of web browser entirely would be a great improvement for making bug reports.

bugzilla vs. debian bug tracking vs. sourceforge

[Zooko]

Is bugzilla better than debian bug tracking? Which is the best bug tracking system?

Personally, I refuse to use SourceForge's bug tracking system because it requires that I fiddle with a mouse and click on little HTML widgets and then wait for a few seconds while the form is submitted to see if it worked. I have better things to do with my time than waste it trying to use HTML and HTTP as a user interface.

I really love debian's bug tracking system, and the `reportbug' package, which allows me to do all my bug reporting with good old e-mail, from the command line, as God intended.

Regards,

Zooko

Winamp uses it!

[leibnizme]

Winamp has been using Bugzilla for the last year to assist in developing the new Winamp 3. It's certainly great for developers, provided that they have a dedicated user base that's willing to "weed out" bad or duplicate bugs. It's also great for users who are beta testing - then we can know which bugs they know about, without e-mailing the developers and wasting their time.

While Winamp's Bugzilla doesn't have the same magnitude as Mozilla's, it's still quite valuable.

Winamp Bugzilla [nullsoft.com]

Re:Bugzilla rocks, indeed.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

The people at my company laughed when I suggested Bugzilla instead of our recently purchased RATIONAL SUITE. I explained that Bugzilla has all the bug tracking web-features we wanted today, instead of waiting until we could "afford to implement the web piece". It seems the licensing costs for Rational Suite are sort of, well, high.

But nobody listened to me, and a million dollars later the entire enterprise runs Rational. Sucks.