Well, first off, I'm not even sure if that would solve the problem. How well does GitHub integrate their issues with their pull requests.
Anyway, the conditions for moving to any other issue tracker would be: - It would need to be at least as powerful as Google Code. Ideally, if we are going through the hassle to move, it should be more powerful. This is talking about things like labels and stuff (I'd need to check to see how good GitHub is with this). - We would need to transfer all the current issues over to the new tracker, keeping all numbers the same. This is the most important one, and also the most difficult. It's important because we have references to issue numbers *everywhere*: in the code, in the commit log, in the mailing list, etc. Currently, Google Code makes it kind of hard to export the issues (you have to do it manually; there's no xml or svn output). Personally, I'm pretty content with the Google Code issue tracker, other than the issues I mentioned below. It works well, and has some nice features (like the advanced search). I haven't played with GitHub's issue tracker too much, but from what I saw, it isn't as good (yet). Aaron Meurer On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Haz wrote: > What were the road-blocks from moving the issues to github again? > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Does anyone have any ideas on ways that we can better manage the pull > requests at GitHub and the issues at Google Code? Right now there are some > issues: > > - People forget to reference the issue number on the pull request or the pull > request on the issue. The best case is that I notice this and fix it, but > it's possible that people don't even realize that there is an issue for the > pull request or visa versa. > > - Even when people remember to reference the pull request on the issue, > either they forget or don't have permissions to add the NeedsReview and > username labels. I think this can be partially fixed by making sure that all > regular contributors are members in the Google Code project so that they can > add labels to issues. I used to be able to handle this manually pretty > easily, but lately the traffic has increased by quite a bit (because of the > GSoC students) and it's getting harder to manage. Ironically, this makes the > labels even more essential. > > - People forget to check the corresponding issue before pushing in a pull > request, like as happened with issue 2302/pull 257. I am just using this as > a recent example, I am not trying to blame Chris here. > > - It's easy to type the wrong issue or pull number. Pull 257 is also an > example of this (and again, I don't want to blame anyone here; the point is > that typos are easy to make). > > Does anyone know if it would be possible to have some kind of more automated > system, where most or all of the above are done automatically? In > particular, it would be nice if the following could be automated: > > - If a pull request is created, then the issue should be marked as > NeedsReview with a label of the person's name. This could be based on > referencing an issue number in a pull request. > > - If someone puts the NeedsBetterPatch or even PassedReview label on an > issue, the pull request should be notified. > > - All pull requests should have an issue, I think. Maybe something could > warn someone if they forgot to reference an issue number in a pull request, > and ask them if they want to create a new issue for it, or reference an > already existing one. > > - In the pull requests, automatically change "issue 1234" to "[issue 1234: > solve(4**x-x**4, x) (and similar) should give all > solutions](http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1234)", or add > that as a new comment. This would make it so that you could see the issue > title, which would let you verify that the number was correct, and it also > would auto-link it, which would make navigation easier. > > With that, you would just have to make sure that you reference the issue > number in the pull request (it could also parse commit messages), and the > rest would be taken care of. > > I'm thinking this should be done by some kind of bot somewhere, but even a > script that you run from your computer and goes through and it does it from > your account (after checking to see if it has already been done or not) would > work. > > I'm putting out a request to the community, because I don't know how to > program such a thing. Does this sound like a good idea? Does it sound > feasible? > > Aaron Meurer > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
