[rt-users] RT3 Documentation: Hackers, FAQ, etc. ???

[Jim Rowan]

	 Our company is looking to transition away from our current
issue tracking system. I've been hesitant to evaluate RT because of its
reputation for a difficult install and configuration...  
	 

RT is a dead easy install if you follow a few guidelines:
 
- follow the directions.  When they say "unsupported" understand that to
mean "there have been problems reported which will result in trouble".
Specifically, if you use mod_perl use 1.x instead of 2.x, and do not use
any perl earlier than 5.8.
 
(Ok, I ran out of guidelines... That about covers it!)
 
 

	 That and lack of developer documentation for the current
release. I have the time to do a vanilla install, but not necessarily to
wade in and grok the code. However, a vanilla install isn't going to
give me an overview of the schema, internals, extensibility, etc. I.e.,
what we as a customer would have to look forward to and live with if the
vanilla install looks promising.  
	 

Grokking the internals is not necessary if you are just planning on
using it.  The interfaces are reasonably clear, it is full-featured,
exceptionally custimizable via gui interfaces, and basically "works out
of the box".   The install directions are perfectly adequate for people
willing to read them.
 
If you are planning to do *development* on it, although it is not
documented as well as everyone would like (have you seen ANY product
that is?), the code is modular, well-structured, and straightforward to
understand and modify, once you understand the paradigms used.  In fact,
it is designed so that you can replace parts of it with routines of your
own.  It is very rare to find a product go to such lengths to make that
possible.  In reality, I have found that the RT2 docs do a fair job at
describing it, although there have been significant changes.

	 Currently, I'm left to read the RT2 developer docs and hope RT3
is only different in "better" ways. The window of opportunity at my
company is slip sliding away. I guess I'll go ahead and see how far I
get...  
	 

If your window is slipping, go install it and quit talking! :)

	Even if the IS guys like the demo... And I don't mean to be an
ass here, but I can foresee the objections I can expect to get. They're
going to visit the bestpractical website and see less documentation than
they're used to and no convenient access to a knowledgebook. If they're
patient enough to navigate the website, they'll eventually find more
documentation on fsck.com/rtfm. But the click paths between sites aren't
always short, consistent or obvious. Then perhaps they'll visit the
fsck.com homepage itself, and the impression that will be formed when
they realize how intertwined the company and Jesse's personal website
are, will be of a one-man shop operating on a shoe-string. 

Many of these issues might have some validity.  Maybe you should just
spend 100K on Remedy?  Alternatively, consider the situation if you paid
Best Practical 100k for support.  (I would argue that the latter is a
better business decision in many cases..  If you like, your company can
hire me to tell you that. :)

Don't compare apples and oranges.

	Of course the product (with support contract) that we're
currently using has bad documentation, is bug-ridden and has provided
almost nothing in the way of paid for support. But they sure do have
slick website ;)

	At least RT is open source and looks fairly mature. Though if it
is within Best Practical's game plan to make in-roads into your typical
blinders-half-on mostly microsoft company, here are a couple of
suggestions:

	 ...
	 
	 Sorry for the rant... I'm just worried about the hard sell I'll
have if I take a fancy to RT and want to push it. And I have to say, RT
looks promising. I have the impression that the people who swear by it
out number those who swear at it.  
	 
	 

If your IT org is not accustomed to using high quality open source
software, then yes -- you are likely to have a problem selling it.
(Don't blame RT for that.)  If open source is already accepted, stick to
the question of whether it is high quality or not.  You won't have much
of a problem. 
 
Jim Rowan
(Not a Best Practical affiliate!:)
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20031203/adf44989/attachment.htm>