[Numpy-discussion] Issue tracking

David Cournapeau cournape@gmail....
Thu Sep 27 07:46:30 CDT 2012


On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Ralf Gommers
<ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones <thouis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Ralf Gommers
>> <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones <thouis@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> >> <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones
>> >> > <thouis@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Travis Oliphant
>> >> >> <travis@continuum.io>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > I have turned on issue tracking and started a few labels.   Feel
>> >> >> > free
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > add
>> >> >> > more / adjust the names as appropriate.     I am trying to find
>> >> >> > someone
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > can help manage the migration from Trac.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are the github issues set up sufficiently for Trac to be disabled
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> github to take over?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You lost me here. You were going to set up a test site where we could
>> >> > see
>> >> > the Trac --> Github conversion could be tested, before actually
>> >> > pushing
>> >> > that
>> >> > conversion to the numpy Github repo. If you sent a message that that
>> >> > was
>> >> > ready, I must have missed it.
>> >> >
>> >> > The current state of labels on https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues
>> >> > is
>> >> > also
>> >> > far from complete (no prios, components).
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't completely clear.  What I meant to ask:
>> >>
>> >> "Are the github issues (and labels) set up well enough for Trac to be
>> >> disabled for accepting new bugs and to point users filing new bugs to
>> >> github instead?"
>> >>
>> >> (The answer to which is "no", based on your reply).
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't think it's a problem that a few issues have already been filed
>> > on
>> > Github, but we'll have to properly label them by hand later.
>> >
>> > Making Github the default or only option now would be a bit strange. It
>> > would be better to first do the conversion, or at least have it far
>> > enough
>> > along that we have agreed on workflow and labels to use.
>>
>> My concern is that transitioning first would define the
>> workflow/labels based on what's in Trac, rather than on what would
>> work best with github.
>
>
> Trac is not unique, most bug trackers have similar concepts (milestones,
> components, prios, issue types).
>
>>
>> But maybe the best way to move things forward
>> is to do the transition to a test project, and see what comes out.

Ok, so scipy.org was down again because of trac. Unfortunately, the
machine on which scipy.org lives is the same as trac, and is a bit
messy. I would really like to accelerate whatever needs to be done to
get that done, both to get out of trac's misery, and to make scipy.org
more responsive.

I can't promise a lot of spare cycles, but I will make sure there are
no roadblocks on Enthought side when we need to make the actual
migration.

Thouis, what needs to be done to make a testbed of the conversion ?

David


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list