Not sure if this helps, and I don't know the details or the mechanism, but I
believe that John Wiegley uses org-mode as a bug tracking tool for his
ledger app.

http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:
>
> > Using org-mode instead of outline-mode is a no-brainer. The only
> > incovenient is org's complexity. A basic but effective use of org is
> > straightforward but its extensive documentation may seem daunting for
> > the occasional user. Maybe a paragraph or two at the beginning of the
> > file explaining what's required for adding entries and doing simple
> > queries would help those developers who don't know nor plan to use org
> > for other uses.
>
> I will write a page on Worg about this.
>
> >> This is the basic workflow.  Of course, permissions and other issues
> >> could be refined but I think such a system is feasible.
> >
> > IMAO this setup is more complex and fragile than a conventional bug
> > tracker. The idea may seem appealing at first for a group of veteran
> > emacs users (those who insist on managing the bug database via e-mail
> > because they refuse to use a web browser, for instance) but I'm far from
> > convinced about its effectiveness.
>
> Aside from the scalability of Org wrt to big bug databases, I'm myself
> only 50% convinced it's an effective setup.  I'd be glad to work on the
> remaining 50%.
>
> >> I don't think the size of the database would really be an issue for the
> >> system above - but maybe I'm wrong on this.
> >
> > I'm afraid you are. Lots of emacs bug reports comprises hundreds of
> > lines of stack dumps, plus e-mail discussions with lots of quoted text,
> > etc. Org is great for notes, but is it practical for containing tens of
> > thousands of bug reports, some of them made of thousands of lines? And
> > you don't control what's on a bug report, they usually contain all sorts
> > of text constructs and random characters. How well it would deal with
> > bug reports about org's itself, containing excerpts from other org
> > files?  Wouldn't this confuse org?
>
> I don't know.  Org is certainly not written for that purpose.  But
> cannot the dumps and discussions but attached as files?  If so, the
> Org database would only need links to these files, not the full bug
> entry.
>
> > Nope, the 20MB is the bugs' text alone.
>
> Gee...
>
> > But attached files belong to the
> > tickets and supposedly provide key information, so you can wipe them
> > away to a place where they are not distributed along with the bug
> > database.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I think org as a bug tracker may work very well for individual
> > developers or for small groups, but not for open big projects such as
> > emacs.
>
> Yes.  In the setup I described in the previous email, no human directly
> write anything in an Org buffer, everything is taken care of by scripts.
> Which is kinda sick, 'cause Org is for humans.
>
> But still, I will continue to brainstorm on this, because if Org is so
> useful for individual bug databases, there should be a clever and useful
> way to *share* these individual databases and have a collective tool.
>
> --
>  Bastien
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>