[mapserver-dev] Github Issue Tracker

[thomas bonfort]

I have enabled the issue tracker on tinyows. I'm open to activating
the one on docs if folks want it that way, I however think that it is
simpler to keep documentation bugs inside the main mapserver/mapserver
tracker as many doc tickets spark off from a mapserver ticket.

regards,
thomas

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Umberto Nicoletti
<umberto.nicoletti at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm for #2 as it fits more naturally in the github scheme. Github is a great
> gateway to attracting developers and imho there is no point in adopting
> conventions that steer us away from its workflow.
>
> Umberto
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alan Boudreault <aboudreault at mapgears.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> An discussion raised up this morning on IRC. I was checking some issues
>> and noticed that the github project mapserver/tinyows hadn't the issue
>> tracker enabled, though mapserver/mapcache had one.
>>
>> We would need to clarify this for us and users and be consistent. Where
>> should I create a ticket for tinyows, mapcache and even doc? There are two
>> options:
>>
>> 1: All issues are created in the github project mapserver/mapserver and
>> committed in their appropriate github repo. This implies to set the LABEL to
>> the appropriate component of the issue. This is similar to the way we worked
>> with SVN (and selecting the component). This regroups everything at the same
>> place, which is a good think. However, if we create an issue related to
>> tinyows and commit a patch in the repo, it is not as straightforward to
>> reference that commit or ticket. To get the automatic referencing in the
>> ticket:
>>
>>  - we need to commit with: git commit -m "bla bla bla
>> mapserver/mapserver#1234"
>>
>>  - in a ticket, we can refenrence a commit with: "this is a comment1
>> mapserver/tinyowns at 1234567"
>>
>> There is proabably other referencing issues... ie... attaching a pull
>> request with a ticket.
>>
>> 2: All issues are created in their own github project and committed
>> normally. This is (IMO) more easy and straightforward for users and devs as
>> well.
>>
>>  - commits are as we did in the pass, a simple #1234 , and @123456 to
>> reference a changeset.
>>
>>  - It is more easy to see ALL issues related to the specific project,
>> since even if the label is missing, it has been created as the right place.
>>
>>  - Also, the concept of *label* in github seems different than a trac
>> component. I don't think we can specify a *owner* for a label. Correct me if
>> I am wrong Thomas. At least, creating issues in MapCache/TinyOWS/Docs would
>> clearly set the component to the project owner.
>>
>> As Thomas mentionned, both solutions have their strengths and weaknesses.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> --
>> Alan Boudreault
>> http://www.mapgears.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> mapserver-dev mailing list
>> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>