[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker.

From: Bastien
Subject: Re: [Orgmode] Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker.
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:18:17 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> 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

> Nope, the 20MB is the bugs' text alone. 


> 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.


> 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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]