[Numpy-discussion] Migrating issues to GitHub
Sat Feb 11 15:49:44 CST 2012
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Eric Firing <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 10:44 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:<snip>
> > 2) You must be an admin to label an issue (i.e. set it as a bug,
> > enhancement, or so forth).
> A third problem is that the entire style of presentation is poorly
> designed from a use standpoint, in comparison to the sourceforge tracker
> which mpl used previously. The github tracker appears to have been
> designed by a graphics person, not a software maintainer. The
> information density in the issue list is very low; it is impossible to
> scan a large number of issues at once; there doesn't seem to be any
> useful sorting and selection mechanism.
The lack of a tabular way to mass-edit bugs is one of my biggest problems
with the current trac. One thing that ideally we could do regularly is to
rapidly triage 100s of bugs. Currently trac requires you to go through them
one by one, like harvesting wheat with a scythe instead of a combine. Users
who are mentioned in a lot of tickets also get spammed by a large number of
message, instead of getting a single summary update of all the triaging
that was done.
Does the github bug tracker have a good story about mass bug-updating?
> > This second concern seems more of a problem. Perhaps this is something
> > that can be brought up with the github developers directly. Not
> > separating issue permissions from code permissions seems rather
> > unfortunate, and creates work for all admins.
> This doesn't seem so bad to me, at least compared to the *really* bad
> > On the other hand, it might force having an admin who is paying regular
> > attention to the issues which is not necessarily a bad thing.
> > So, despite the drawback, it seems that having issues on Trac and having
> > code-conversations on those issues happening separately from the
> > pull-request conversations is even less optimal.
> The one good thing about the github tracker is its integration with the
> code. Otherwise it is still just plain bad, and will remain so until it
> is given an information-dense tabular interface, with things like
> initiation date, last update, category, priority, etc. Down with
> whitespace and icons! We need information!
> > -Travis
> > On Feb 11, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> >> On Saturday, February 11, 2012, Travis Oliphant <email@example.com
> >> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> >> > How to people feel about moving the issue tracking for NumPy to
> >> Github? It looks like they have improved their issue tracking quite a
> >> bit and the workflow and integration with commits looks quite good
> >> from what I can see.
> >> > Here is one tool I saw that might help in the migration:
> >> https://github.com/trustmaster/trac2github
> >> > Are there others?
> >> > -Travis
> >> >
> >> This is probably less of an issue for numpy, but our biggest complaint
> >> about the github tracker for matplotlib is the inability for users to
> >> add attachments.
> >> The second complaint is that it is awkward to assign priorities (has
> >> to be done via labels). Particularly, users can not apply labels
> >> themselves.
> >> Mind you, neither of these complaints were enough to completely
> >> preclude mpl from migrating, but it should be taken into consideration.
> >> Cheers!
> >> Ben Root _______________________________________________
> >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> >> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org <mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org>
> >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion