1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
|
What is overyone's idea about the ever-growing list of pages in bugs/ etc.?
Once linked to `done`, they're removed from the rendered [[bugs]] page -- but
they're still present in the repository.
Shouldn't there be some clean-up at some point for those that have been
resolved? Or should all of them be kept online forever?
--[[tschwinge]]
> To answer a question with a question, what harm does having the done bugs
> around cause? At some point in the future perhaps the number of done pages
> will be large enough to be a time or space concern. Do you think we've
> reached a point now? One advantage of having them around is that people
> running older versions of the Ikiwiki software may find the page explaining
> that the bug is fixed if they perform a search. -- [[Jon]]
> I like to keep old bugs around. --[[Joey]]
So, I guess it depends on whether you want to represent the development of the
software (meaning: which bugs are open, which are fixed) *(a)* in a snapshot of
the repository (a checkout; that is, what you see rendered on
<http://ikiwiki.info/>), or *(b)* if that information is to be contained in the
backing repository's revision history only. Both approaches are valid. For
people used to using Git for accessing a project's history, *(b)* is what
they're used to, but for those poor souls ;-) that only use a web browser to
access this database, *(a)* is the more useful approach indeed. For me, using
Git, it is a bit of a hindrance, as, when doing a full-text search for a
keyword on a checkout, I'd frequently hit pages that reported a bug, but are
tagged `done` by now. --[[tschwinge]]
|