[Numpy-discussion] Issue Tracking

Jason Grout jason-sage at creativetrax.com
Tue May 1 16:36:53 EDT 2012

On 5/1/12 3:19 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> But if you do decide to go with GHI, it should be based on what the
> system is like*today*, not on the hope that it will get better.
> About a month ago they broke label filtering by turning multi-label
> filters into an OR operation, which effectively rendered the labels
> completely useless.  Despite reporting it multiple times via their
> support tracker AND speaking in person at someone from GH, it still
> took well over a month or two to fix.  For something so simple and so
> essential, I consider that to be atrociously bad response.  So don't
> go for GHI on the hope it will get a lot better soon, b/c their recent
> record doesn't support a hopeful viewpoint.

This example indicates that basing  your decision on what it is like 
*today* may not be valid either.  You'd hope that they won't do 
something really silly, but you can't change it if they do, and you 
can't just keep running the old version of issues to avoid problems 
since you don't have control over that either.

Anyway, like everyone else has said, Ralf, Pauli, et. al. are really the 
ones to vote in this.  Given Fernando's responses, I realize why GHI 
still works for us---our small project has me and 2-4 students, and we 
all pretty much meet each week to triage issues together, and there are 
only about 40 open issues.  It's a simple enough project that we need 
*something*, but we don't need to spend our time setting up complicated 
infrastructure.  I do wish we could use Google Code issues with Github 
pull requests, though :).



More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list