Re: BugCommunicator as a GRUB BTS

[Neal H. Walfield]

> IMHO, if the design of a software package sucks, it isn't worth
> improving, even if the implementation is elegant, beautiful, simple,
> and smart. Especially when the goal is different from yours, there is
> no point where you can contribute.
> 
> That's why I started BugCommunicator. I surveyed some famous projects
> before starting and concluded that no project would satisfy my
> needs. Sicne it is critical for us to have a good BTS, I believe that
> I didn't waste my time.

I certainly appreciate these arguments, however, I would appreciate it
(as I think would others) if you could briefly enumerate what
separates bugcomm from the others.  That is, which design issues does
bugcomm try to correct; just calling it better does not mean anything
without arguments for why it is so.

Thanks.