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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
|
I see that ikiwiki has already some [[bugs]] stored on the wiki, but adding
better support for bug tracking would really make it a good project
management system for small projects. Storing the sourcecode, wiki, developer
blog and the issue tracker information under a same revision control
system really makes sense. At the moment the only part missing from ikiwiki
is the bug tracker plugin.
The support would not need to be anything fancy, assignment of bug numbers
is perhaps the biggest thing missing when compared to a plain wiki page.
Integration with the revision control system a la [scmbug](http://www.mkgnu.net/?q=scmbug)
would really neat though, so that bug tracker commands like (closes: #nnn) could
be embedded to the source code repository commit messages.
> A while back I posted some thoughts in my blog about
> [using a wiki for issue tracking](http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/using_a_wiki_for_issue_tracking.html).
> Google's BTS also has some interesting developments along the lines of
> free-form search-based bug tracking, a style that seems a better fit to
> wikis than the traditional rigid data of a BTS.
>
> I sorta take your point about bug numbers. It can be a pain to refer to
> 'using_a_wiki_for_issue_tracking' as a bug name in a place like a
> changelog.
>
> OTOH, I don't see a need for specially formatted commit messages to be
> used to close bugs. Instead, if your BTS is kept in an ikiwiki wiki in
> an RCS along with your project, you can do like I do here, and just edit a
> bug's page, tag it `done`, and commit that along with the bug fix.
>
> --[[Joey]]
>> I think a little bit more structure than in a normal wiki would be
>> good to have for bug tracking. Bug numbers, automatic timestamps on comments
>> and maybe an email interface would be nice. The resulting page may not
>> look like a wikipage anymore, but rather something like the Debian
>> BTS web-interface, but it would still benefit from wikilinks to the
>> documentation in the wiki etc.
>>
>> About the commit message interface: I was thinking about a project
>> architecture where the code is kept in a separate revision control
>> system branch than the metadata (blog, wiki, BTS). This would IMHO
>> be a cleaner solution for distributing the source and making releases
>> etc. For this kind of setup, having the BTS scan the messages of the
>> source branch (by a commit-hook for example) would be useful.
>>
>> By Google BTS, do you mean the issue tracker in the Google code
>> project hosting?
>>
>> --Teemu
|