Issue tracking when writing a paper When writing papers (and even more - when revising after collaborators', or reviewers', remarks) it's hard to keep track what is done, what needs to be fixed, what cannot be fixed, when opinions of authors are equivocal (and when an issue raised by one author is not supported by the others).

Moreover, it generates to a lot of e-mail traffic, often with a short remarks.

The question is, is there a issue tracking software (or workflow) suitable for reviewing academic papers?

(As a side note, I'm familiar with JIRA, but never used it for papers. I'm the most interested in answer when someone actually uses a given method, not "well, I never tried but here is [a link to a random issue tracking software]".)
It sounds like you want to use a version control system, combined with a bug tracker. Luckily, Mercurial combined with an online bitbucket.org repository provides a nice workflow. When remarks or notes appear, you add them to the issue tracker at your bitbucket page (note that bitbucket provides private repositories). See this example from one of my software projects. 

When working on the paper you can select one of the issues, fix it, add to your repository, with a mention of the issue number in the bug tracker. This sounds like it could provide you with two important things: managing of the growth of your paper, and organizing your workflow of handeling the interaction with the other authors.