SciPy bugtracker on GitHub (a la NumPy)?
(This might have been discussed before, forgive me if I've missed it.) NumPy is using "Issues" on GitHub as bugtracker in addition to trac it seems. It has several advantages. Everything is kept in one place on GitHub. The interface is more tidy. And pull requests can be attached to "issues" (cf. tickets with attached .diff files on trac). In my experience the patches contributed on trac often get "forgotten". Someone has to take time to get them into git/svn. (Which quickly discouraged me from contributing anything.) I think this is the same reason Ralph Gommers complained when I mailed cKDTree code here instead of using git myself: "I know you may not have the time or interest to learn about git right now, but it may make both our lives easier if you try the below steps. It will allow you to put your commits on top of mine without any manual copying." I guess that applies to anything attached to a ticket on trac as well? When SciPy is on GitHub I think we should consider using GitHub's issue tracker. (And NumPy is already using it.) Sturla
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla@molden.no> wrote:
(This might have been discussed before, forgive me if I've missed it.)
NumPy is using "Issues" on GitHub as bugtracker in addition to trac it seems. It has several advantages. Everything is kept in one place on GitHub. The interface is more tidy. And pull requests can be attached to "issues" (cf. tickets with attached .diff files on trac).
In my experience the patches contributed on trac often get "forgotten". Someone has to take time to get them into git/svn. (Which quickly discouraged me from contributing anything.) I think this is the same reason Ralph Gommers complained when I mailed cKDTree code here instead of using git myself: "I know you may not have the time or interest to learn about git right now, but it may make both our lives easier if you try the below steps. It will allow you to put your commits on top of mine without any manual copying." I guess that applies to anything attached to a ticket on trac as well?
Indeed. Patches as Trac attachments have some overhead for review and
getting it merged. That's why unfortunately some patches have languished there for too long.
When SciPy is on GitHub I think we should consider using GitHub's issue tracker. (And NumPy is already using it.)
The Trac --> Github conversion is still in progress for numpy. Once that's completed and it all looks good, the plan is to do the same for scipy. I'm glad you like git/Github. Looking forward to more patches:) Ralf
Den 30.07.2012 21:31, skrev Ralf Gommers:
I'm glad you like git/Github. Looking forward to more patches:)/scipy-dev
I finally figured out how git/Github works. (That is, after reading two books on git, I'm still not comfortable using it, but I'm trying to learn.) Hopefully I can contribute something without just having it lost on trac. I discovered that Patrick Varilly's last PR did not have a corresponding ticket on trac. I don't think a PR without a ticket is a good idea, although his PR explains what it does. I guess this is easier to not to mess up if the issues/tickets are on Github as well. (That is the reason I started this thread.) Pauli: Waiting for Thouis' track -> Github migration seems like a good idea. I wasn't saying that trac should be closed either. :) Sturla
30.07.2012 21:15, Sturla Molden kirjoitti: [clip]
When SciPy is on GitHub I think we should consider using GitHub's issue tracker. (And NumPy is already using it.)
I would wait until Thouis finishes the trac ticket -> Github migration path. Github issues IMHO do not feature-wise offer much that Trac does not have, and the lack of attachments will mean in the context of Scipy that people who want to attach data files will have to work a bit harder to find separate hosting (and those links will become dead eventually). It also does not help with the "have-to-learn-git-first" issue regarding patches. Switching is more of an issue of shifting the server maintenance for somebody else to do. The integration between tickets and PRs becomes a bit better, but this in my experience can be worked tolerably around by pasting the corresponding cross-links in the comments. The better response for pull requests as compared to patches on Trac is a real effect. I think this is mainly due to: (i) the pull requests are much easier to locate (whereas in Trac, everything is mixed up with bug reports etc.) and look at, and (ii) what is submitted as pull request on average seems to be in a more "finished" form than code snippets attached on Trac. Pauli
On 07/30/12 12:39, Pauli Virtanen wrote: [clip]
Github issues IMHO do not feature-wise offer much that Trac does not have, and the lack of attachments will mean in the context of Scipy that people who want to attach data files will have to work a bit harder to find separate hosting (and those links will become dead eventually). It also does not help with the "have-to-learn-git-first" issue regarding patches. Switching is more of an issue of shifting the server maintenance for somebody else to do. Regarding attaching files in github issues and pull-requests: using http://gist.github.com streamlines this.
The integration between tickets and PRs becomes a bit better, but this in my experience can be worked tolerably around by pasting the corresponding cross-links in the comments.
The better response for pull requests as compared to patches on Trac is a real effect. I think this is mainly due to: (i) the pull requests are much easier to locate (whereas in Trac, everything is mixed up with bug reports etc.) and look at, and (ii) what is submitted as pull request on average seems to be in a more "finished" form than code snippets attached on Trac.
Pauli
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
30.07.2012 22:08, Jacob VanderPlas kirjoitti: [clip]
Regarding attaching files in github issues and pull-requests: using http://gist.github.com streamlines this.
Can you attach binary files? I think it's possible by pushing directly to the Gist via Git, but not via the web interface. Also, when using the web interface, you need to copy-paste everything, right? Pauli
30.07.2012 22:08, Jacob VanderPlas kirjoitti: [clip]
Regarding attaching files in github issues and pull-requests: using http://gist.github.com streamlines this. Can you attach binary files? I think it's possible by pushing directly to the Gist via Git, but not via the web interface. Also, when using the web interface, you need to copy-paste everything, right? You can attach any sort of file from the git interface (i.e. by cloning
On 07/30/12 13:27, Pauli Virtanen wrote: the gist, adding files locally, then pushing to origin). There's not a web interface for this that I'm aware of. The web interface is only copy/paste of text. Jake
Den 30.07.2012 22:45, skrev Jacob VanderPlas:
You can attach any sort of file from the git interface (i.e. by cloning the gist, adding files locally, then pushing to origin). There's not a web interface for this that I'm aware of. The web interface is only copy/paste of text.
It seems that gist only accepts certain text formats, not binary. But it can accept base64 as ascii text I think. Sturla
participants (4)
-
Jacob VanderPlas -
Pauli Virtanen -
Ralf Gommers -
Sturla Molden