It seems that github supports any feature (including tags) I currently can think of, so maybe we should really consider a move.
BTW, I just read [1], so there is a gist API, we can consider it for sympy-bot. Vinzent [1] https://github.com/blog/846-new-issues-and-gist-api On Apr 29, 10:16 pm, Haz <[email protected]> wrote: >> > We could also use the tools that that script uses >> > (http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/IssueTrackerAPI > > andhttps://github.com/ask/python-github2) to write the bot that I was > > talking about below. > > > Aaron Meurer > > > On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Haz wrote: > > > -https://github.com/cfinke/googlecode2github > > > <https://github.com/cfinke/googlecode2github> ? > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> Well, it does indeed seem that they've improved. > > >> Show me a way to transfer issues from Google Code to GitHub, and you may > >> have sold me. > > >> Aaron Meurer > > >> On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Haz wrote: > > >> Integration with pull requests > >> -https://github.com/blog/712-pull-requests-2-0 > > >> New issue stuff: > >> -https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation > > >> <https://github.com/blog/712-pull-requests-2-0> What about a gradual > >> migration? Prohibit new issues on Google, and gradually close them all off. > > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> 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.
