|
From: | Colin Campbell |
Subject: | Re: GOP-PROP 13: patch management tools |
Date: | Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:25:45 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13 |
On 11-09-21 04:13 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 09:04:39PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:My impression is that the main problem is the "duplicancy" of data and e-mail threads. Over and over again i'm getting lost, for example:I can't see that going away. - email is the most convenient option for quick discussion - rietveld is the best option (other than other potential review tools) for discussing specific bits of code - issue tracker keeps comments in a more organized "archived" state It would be nice if specific patches/issues were discussed on either rietveld or the issue tracker, but I can't see everybody doing this.One thing comes to my mind: there is some code revieving tool on Google Code. I remember that i saw it being used in some other project. It's a bit hidden, but i managed to found some info: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/CodeReviews Looks that we need to add our source code to the Google Code to be able to use that. I think this may be worth considering. Could we add our source to Google Code and see what we can do then?Of course it's worth considering, but I don't see that cutting down on the duplicate discussions.Another thing: i'd consider adding a policy about separating discussion about code and notation: comments on issue tracker should be about notation/features (i.e. what should the output be? What syntax do we want to use?) and all comments about code itself (is the indentation correct? Does it pass regtests?) should be done at code revieving tool.I don't see that going well; the people we most want comments from (i.e. senior developers) are the people who are the least likely to log into a website and comment there. Cheers, - Graham
I'm solidly with Janek here, Graham. As it sits, a person wanting to follow the trail of a (bug/issue/enhancement request) has to find the thing on two separate web-sites, where developers log in despite your comment above, using two different tracking numbers and possibly two different descriptions. The curious person also has to read -devel and -bug to be sure nothing relevant was sent mail-list only. No doubt it would be a wrench converting to a code management system, but I firmly believe the benefits from having all relevant material, discussions, patches and reviews, in a single place, are immediately large, and that although there is no way to quantify it but one can reasonably expect it, a synergy will develop where unexpected things happen as a result of seeing a bigger picture.
I know this is a change from my earlier vote for your collection of automagic scripts and linkages, but ISTM that's reinventing wheels in an effort to avoid change. We are accustomed to using two quite different tools, each very good at what it does, but with upwards of 600 issues live at any time, I don't think tying a rock to a stick with a lot more thongs is the answer: I think we need a hammer designed for the purpose.
Cheers Colin -- I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both hands. You need to be able to throw something back. -Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |