@rakugo, I quite like your trains of thoughts here and would sure welcome the effort... a simple TiddlySpace of that sort might just start out with a list of all (open?) tickets. People who cared enough would then somewhat 'grab' them, evaluate them and transfer them if so desired - keeping Martin's suggestions in mind - while also being able to get a feel for which issue has already been dealt with (in terms of migration to git) and which hasn't.
Although (if not "because") this might put the opensource idea quite to the test, I think your suggestions make a lot of sense. However, I would still favour that anything which during the process indeed were to be transferred to git should be removed from the trac archives ...unless only some part of the ticket that has been deemed "essential" by the person reviewing it was to be transferred. Eventually, reduncancies hardly ever are anything but cumbersome when it comes to tracking issues. So, if there is a communal effort to sort out remaining tickets... there should be someone with administrative access to the archives who will remove anything from trac that got transferred during the process. Also it might turn out beneficial to point from a trac ticket to a new git ticket once the latter is being created and - for reference purposes - vice versa. Cheers, Tobias. On 2 Feb., 15:46, rakugo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 1, 10:08 pm, Tobias Beer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Somewhere along this thread I read that the discussion is about some > > +-300 active issues. I would suggest that someone (preferably > > @Osmosoft) took a few days to browse through them... prioritize the > > issues (by a beforehand agreed upon evaluation scheme) - see Martin's > > points - and move whatever is deemed important enough to the new > > system ...not waiting for anyone else - perhaps new to tw-and-its- > > shiny-new-git-thingy - to be searching through abandoned (trac) > > archives for some unresolved backlogs. > > I agree with this apart from the "Osmosoft" doing this. We are an open > source project and should act like it. The issues list is quite simply > too big. As Martin points out some of those issues have changes that > will break backwards compatibility, these are not actionable and > should be recorded somewhere other than an issues list. A developer > wiki or some other system. > > What might be a good idea is to collaboratively as a community review > these trac tickets. We could imagine setting up a TiddlySpace which > has imported all the trac tickets where any registered member (or any > interested TiddlyWiki community member) can review the tickets CREATE/ > AMEND but not DELETE. We could imagine using conventions such as > adding a tag "discard", "needswork" or "keep" to each of these > tickets. After this process any tagged discard, we delete, any that > have been tagged needswork are improved, any tagged keep are migrated > to github. > > I think a transparent review system like the above will help here. > > Thoughts? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" 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/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
