Vendor Recommendation for Defect Tracking Integration

1. Introduction

This document recommends the defect tracking products for integration with Perforce Software's fast software configuration management system by the Perforce Defect Tracking Integration project.

Note that the project will also produce an "integration kit" which will enable anyone (including Perforce or Ravenbrook) to integrate with other systems [Req 21].

The readership of this document is Perforce senior management.

This document is not confidential.

2. Executive Summary

I recommend that the project integrate Perforce with TeamTrack by TeamShare. I recommend that this integration be the main focus of the project, and its first deliverable.

I also recommend that the project integrate with the open source Bugzilla.

The project should continue to investigate integration with Remedy Action Request System by Remedy Corporation and other large scale workflow and management information systems in order that the integration kit is suitable for them.

3. Vendor Analysis

We analysed each vendor against the project goals [Goal], and the current requirements [Req].

At the time of writing, the goals of the Perforce Defect Tracking Integration Project are:

1. to meet customers demands for defect tracking integration;
2. to contribute to Perforce's financial success;
3. to make Perforce a suitable solution for more organizations.

The points for and against each product are presented in order of importance.

3.1. tTrack by TeamShare

1. tTrack is fairly popular amongst Perforce users, is often mentioned, and has been called "best of breed" by independent consultants. An integration will therefore both contribute to all three goals.
2. tTrack is representative of Windows/ODBC based client-server defect trackers with a web interface. Integrating will therefore make the integration kit suitable for other similar systems, such as DevTrack (3.4) and TRACK Defects (3.5).
3. TeamShare are a co-operative vendor and keen to integrate with Perforce. They already have a good relationship with Perforce.
4. The tTrack API is reasonably well documented and the API makes integration technically feasible [GDR 2000-05-30].

3.2. Bugzilla originally by Mozilla.org

1. Bugzilla's architecture is very different from tTrack. Integrating with it will therefore ensure that the integration kit is extensible to a range of systems [Req 21].
2. Bugzilla is popular amongst Perforce users, is often mentioned, and, we believe, is likely to be popular amongst young companies. An integration will therefore contribute mostly to goal 1.
3. Bugzilla is representative of open source systems. There are likely to be other open source defect trackers, developed by similar means to Bugzilla. Integrating with Bugzilla will help to make the project structures suitable for integration with them.
4. An integration with Bugzilla is cheap for people to try out.
5. The Bugzilla project hackers are receptive, and this seems to be about the right time to start an integration.
6. Bugzilla is messy and unstructured, so integration, and maintaining the integration, could be a challenge.

3.3. Remedy ARS by Remedy Corporation

1. Remedy is representative of large scale business workflow systems. There are several such systems used by large organizations. Remedy is the one mentioned by Perforce customers. Integrating with these systems is important to make Perforce applicable in larger organizations, contributing to goal 3.
2. Remedy have been somewhat unresponsive and slow moving in providing us with the information we need to integrate.
3. We've not been able to obtain documentation, but they claim to have an extensive, flexible, maintained interface.

3.4. DevTrack by TechExcel

1. TechExcel are a co-operative vendor, willing to make changes to their system to support integration.
2. Like tTrack, DevTrack is representative of Windows/ODBC based defect trackers with web interfaces (see 3.1).
3. DevTrack was not in use by any Perforce customers in our survey.
4. DevTrack's architecture is similar to tTrack's. Integrating should be a simple extension given an integration with tTrack, but would not add much to the extensibility of the project.

3.5. TRACK Defects by Soffront Software

1. Soffront were not very open to an integration meeting the requirements of Perforce customers.
2. Like tTrack, TRACK Defects is representative of Windows/ODBC based defect trackers with web interfaces (see 3.1).
3. TRACK Defects was mentioned by some Perforce customers.
4. TRACK Defects' architecture is similar to tTrack's. Integrating should be a simple extension given an integration with tTrack, but would not add much to the extensibility of the project.

4. Conclusions

See the executive summary (2) for a summary of this document.

If this recommendation is accepted, the project requirements, especially requirements 6 to 19, will need to be adjusted to prioritize tTrack and Bugzilla [Req]. This will not have much impact on the architecture analysis [GDR 2000-05-30], and so is not a costly change at this stage.

A. References

B. Document History

Copyright © 2000 Ravenbrook Limited. This document is provided "as is", without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this document. You may make and distribute verbatim copies of this document provided that you do not charge a fee for this document or for its distribution.