BugTracker: suggestion to use a single one

[atoomic]

I noticed that the bug tracker advertised on metacpan is RT:
https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Dist/Display.html?Name=ExtUtils-MakeMaker
which contains ~60 opened bugs

We can also count ~48 opened issues on GitHub https://github.com/Perl-Toolchain-Gang/ExtUtils-MakeMaker/issues

My suggestion is to promote the GitHub tracker and convert all opened issues from RT to GitHub.

If you are ok with this plan I could convert the RT issues and submit a minor patch here to promote GitHub.

Waiting for feedbacks before proceeding

[jkeenan]

I noticed that the bug tracker advertised on metacpan is RT: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Dist/Display.html?Name=ExtUtils-MakeMaker which contains ~60 opened bugs

We can also count ~48 opened issues on GitHub https://github.com/Perl-Toolchain-Gang/ExtUtils-MakeMaker/issues

My suggestion is to promote the GitHub tracker and convert all opened issues from RT to GitHub.

If you are ok with this plan I could convert the RT issues and submit a minor patch here to promote GitHub.

Waiting for feedbacks before proceeding

Today I encountered the situation @atoomic described above. A would-be contributor to EU-MM submitted a p.r. to Perl 5 blead. I had to re-direct him ... to RT for filing a bug report, but to GitHub for filing a p.r. Confusing. While I myself am fine with receiving bug reports on my CPAN modules on RT, I do agree that having two queues is confusing. Bug reports on both then tend to languish.

[jkeenan]

Also cited in https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.workers/2025/05/msg1682.html.

[DrHyde]

As well as copying all the open issues across, the META.* files need updating so that metacpan etc will point people at the right bugtracker.

[Leont]

+1. Unifying the bug trackers would make life easier for everyone.