I couldn't find the old thread about Sourceforge bug tracker vs. the Github issue tracker, but maybe we should reevaluate based on the new Github issue tracker announced on Saturday: https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation The integration with git commits (closing issues by mentioning them in the commit message) is particularly compelling. Cheers, Mike -- Michael Droettboom Science Software Branch Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, Maryland, USA
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> wrote: > I couldn't find the old thread about Sourceforge bug tracker vs. the > Github issue tracker, but maybe we should reevaluate based on the new > Github issue tracker announced on Saturday: > > https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation > > The integration with git commits (closing issues by mentioning them in > the commit message) is particularly compelling. The new issue tracker is a really big improvement over the old github tracker, and I prefer it to the one at sourceforge since it integrates so nicely with github version control. The github tracker is still missing some features that we may want to consider: prioritize issues, add attachments, and perhaps report issues without opening a github account.
Darren Dale, on 2011年04月11日 13:24, wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> wrote: > > I couldn't find the old thread about Sourceforge bug tracker vs. the > > Github issue tracker, but maybe we should reevaluate based on the new > > Github issue tracker announced on Saturday: > > > > https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation > > > > The integration with git commits (closing issues by mentioning them in > > the commit message) is particularly compelling. > > The new issue tracker is a really big improvement over the old github > tracker, and I prefer it to the one at sourceforge since it integrates > so nicely with github version control. The github tracker is still > missing some features that we may want to consider: prioritize issues, > add attachments, and perhaps report issues without opening a github > account. I'm fine either way - though moving to GitHub certainly makes sense as it has momentum - whereas SF.net has been stagnating and not getting any faster for quite some time now. My only concern / request is that we transfer and/or clean up (wholesale) the sf.net bug tracker before we move to GH. It'd be a disservice to our users if we just ignored or mass-closed those issues in the transition to GH. best, -- Paul Ivanov 314 address only used for lists, off-list direct email at: http://pirsquared.org | GPG/PGP key id: 0x0F3E28F7
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Paul Ivanov <piv...@gm...> wrote: > Darren Dale, on 2011年04月11日 13:24, wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> wrote: >> > I couldn't find the old thread about Sourceforge bug tracker vs. the >> > Github issue tracker, but maybe we should reevaluate based on the new >> > Github issue tracker announced on Saturday: >> > >> > https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation >> > >> > The integration with git commits (closing issues by mentioning them in >> > the commit message) is particularly compelling. >> >> The new issue tracker is a really big improvement over the old github >> tracker, and I prefer it to the one at sourceforge since it integrates >> so nicely with github version control. The github tracker is still >> missing some features that we may want to consider: prioritize issues, >> add attachments, and perhaps report issues without opening a github >> account. > > I'm fine either way - though moving to GitHub certainly makes > sense as it has momentum - whereas SF.net has been stagnating and > not getting any faster for quite some time now. > > My only concern / request is that we transfer and/or clean up > (wholesale) the sf.net bug tracker before we move to GH. It'd be > a disservice to our users if we just ignored or mass-closed those > issues in the transition to GH. I spent a weekend working on porting the issues to github. https://github.com/ddale/mpl-issues contains an xml dump of the sourceforge tracker, along with the script I used to parse the dump file, filter it, and upload the issues to that repo. It could be improved to add labels, assign to developers, assign milestones, once github provides API access to issues-2.0.
On 04/11/2011 07:24 AM, Darren Dale wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Michael Droettboom<md...@st...> wrote: >> I couldn't find the old thread about Sourceforge bug tracker vs. the >> Github issue tracker, but maybe we should reevaluate based on the new >> Github issue tracker announced on Saturday: >> >> https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation >> >> The integration with git commits (closing issues by mentioning them in >> the commit message) is particularly compelling. > > The new issue tracker is a really big improvement over the old github > tracker, and I prefer it to the one at sourceforge since it integrates > so nicely with github version control. The github tracker is still > missing some features that we may want to consider: prioritize issues, > add attachments, and perhaps report issues without opening a github > account. It is better, but to my eye, still not good. Prioritization can be handled via labels or milestones, but the lack of a simple, obvious attachment facility is a huge omission. As far as I know there is also no simple set of categories for closed status--maybe that would also be done with labels. (I'm not positive; I have not closed an item, and nothing happens when I click the "60 closed issues" tab, expecting to see the closed issues. Similarly, nothing happens when I click the "submitted" "updated", and "comments" buttons. Maybe all these things are bugs that show up if one does not have Firefox 4 or Chrome?) The automatic, compulsory, irrevocable Markdown parsing of all comments is a horrible design, and all the more so in the absence of file up/download facility. It's being used; I think we are stuck with it. I have no objection to getting the migration over with, if you have the machinery to do it, Dale. Eric
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote: > On 04/11/2011 07:24 AM, Darren Dale wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Michael Droettboom<md...@st...> wrote: >>> I couldn't find the old thread about Sourceforge bug tracker vs. the >>> Github issue tracker, but maybe we should reevaluate based on the new >>> Github issue tracker announced on Saturday: >>> >>> https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation >>> >>> The integration with git commits (closing issues by mentioning them in >>> the commit message) is particularly compelling. >> >> The new issue tracker is a really big improvement over the old github >> tracker, and I prefer it to the one at sourceforge since it integrates >> so nicely with github version control. The github tracker is still >> missing some features that we may want to consider: prioritize issues, >> add attachments, and perhaps report issues without opening a github >> account. > > It is better, but to my eye, still not good. > > Prioritization can be handled via labels or milestones, but the lack of > a simple, obvious attachment facility is a huge omission. As far as I > know there is also no simple set of categories for closed status--maybe > that would also be done with labels. (I'm not positive; I have not > closed an item, and nothing happens when I click the "60 closed issues" > tab, expecting to see the closed issues. Similarly, nothing happens > when I click the "submitted" "updated", and "comments" buttons. Maybe > all these things are bugs that show up if one does not have Firefox 4 or > Chrome?) The automatic, compulsory, irrevocable Markdown parsing of all > comments is a horrible design, and all the more so in the absence of > file up/download facility. > > It's being used; I think we are stuck with it. I have no objection to > getting the migration over with, if you have the machinery to do it, Dale. I'm willing to continue working on the conversion, iff (not a typo) it is what the other developers want. It may be a while before I could get to it though. Darren
On 04/11/2011 03:51 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 04/11/2011 07:24 AM, Darren Dale wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Michael Droettboom<md...@st...> wrote: >> >>> I couldn't find the old thread about Sourceforge bug tracker vs. the >>> Github issue tracker, but maybe we should reevaluate based on the new >>> Github issue tracker announced on Saturday: >>> >>> https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation >>> >>> The integration with git commits (closing issues by mentioning them in >>> the commit message) is particularly compelling. >>> >> The new issue tracker is a really big improvement over the old github >> tracker, and I prefer it to the one at sourceforge since it integrates >> so nicely with github version control. The github tracker is still >> missing some features that we may want to consider: prioritize issues, >> add attachments, and perhaps report issues without opening a github >> account. >> > It is better, but to my eye, still not good. > > Prioritization can be handled via labels or milestones, but the lack of > a simple, obvious attachment facility is a huge omission. As far as I > know there is also no simple set of categories for closed status--maybe > that would also be done with labels. Labels could be used for that purpose -- but it would be "by convention", so I can imagine we'd forget to do that from time to time. > (I'm not positive; I have not > closed an item, and nothing happens when I click the "60 closed issues" > tab, expecting to see the closed issues. Similarly, nothing happens > when I click the "submitted" "updated", and "comments" buttons. I see this too. And I think we're not the only ones -- there's a bug filed about it: http://support.github.com/discussions/issues-issues/608-closed-tickets-do-not-show-up-in-the-list-firefox-3615 (Hmm... git doesn't use its own issue tracker for tracking its own issues... what does that say? <wink>) > Maybe > all these things are bugs that show up if one does not have Firefox 4 or > Chrome?) The automatic, compulsory, irrevocable Markdown parsing of all > comments is a horrible design, The Wikis on github support a handful of formatting languages, including reStructuredText (which is what my fingers know best) -- so they "have the technology" to do something else. But honestly, for short issue comments, I think plain text is the best choice. > and all the more so in the absence of > file up/download facility. > They've got gist, of course, but it is neither easy or intuitive for casual use. Mike > It's being used; I think we are stuck with it. I have no objection to > getting the migration over with, if you have the machinery to do it, Dale. > > Eric > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Forrester Wave Report - Recovery time is now measured in hours and minutes > not days. Key insights are discussed in the 2010 Forrester Wave Report as > part of an in-depth evaluation of disaster recovery service providers. > Forrester found the best-in-class provider in terms of services and vision. > Read this report now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/ibm-webcastpromo > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > -- Michael Droettboom Science Software Branch Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, Maryland, USA
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> wrote: > (Hmm... git doesn't use its own issue tracker for tracking its own > issues... what does that say? <wink>) Brilliant, whatever they use allows uploading attachments.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Darren Dale <dsd...@gm...> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> > wrote: > > (Hmm... git doesn't use its own issue tracker for tracking its own > > issues... what does that say? <wink>) > > Brilliant, whatever they use allows uploading attachments. > > Maybe it would be made available for "Issues: Deep Space Nine", or do I have to wait until "Voyager"? Ben Root
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Darren Dale <dsd...@gm...> wrote: > > Brilliant, whatever they use allows uploading attachments. I know this isn't ideal, but a workaround for screenshots/images in mpl bug reports would be to upload them to something like imgur (free - no registration required): http://imgur.com/tools/ and then put the image link in the markdown for the bug report: https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation#comment-11405 I realize it's a workaround, but better than nothing... f
On 04/11/2011 11:19 AM, Darren Dale wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Michael Droettboom<md...@st...> wrote: >> (Hmm... git doesn't use its own issue tracker for tracking its own >> issues... what does that say?<wink>) > > Brilliant, whatever they use allows uploading attachments. They are using this: http://tenderapp.com/