From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: debbugs tracker builds character Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:40:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <87twg2g86g.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83eg76n5h5.fsf@gnu.org> <87y45eeoor.fsf@lifelogs.com> <577D42BB.1020500@cs.ucla.edu> <87oa694rfw.fsf@russet.org.uk> <837fcxlbay.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh1d2wg5.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83eg75jk5h.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh1cb6p0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87oa5sa176.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <874m7kmkcm.fsf@gmx.de> <87zipc8gx2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87eg6o8aa6.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1469047362 23918 80.91.229.3 (20 Jul 2016 20:42:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:42:42 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 20 22:42:34 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bPyK8-0005Qn-W4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 22:42:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37002 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bPyK8-0007fs-AY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:42:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35377) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bPyFn-0004lL-Ea for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:38:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bPyFj-0003gb-7g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:38:02 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:40623) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bPyFj-0003gP-0W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:37:59 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bPyFg-00031k-Kb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 22:37:56 +0200 Original-Received: from 69-165-156-121.dsl.teksavvy.com ([69.165.156.121]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 22:37:56 +0200 Original-Received: from monnier by 69-165-156-121.dsl.teksavvy.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 22:37:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 69-165-156-121.dsl.teksavvy.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zBOUO2bFoZnI99pmK5r+EKsFNo8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205923 Archived-At: > Rebase or amend+force push would update a branch destructively, which in > a pull request context should show you that a comment was for a commit > that's no longer in the branch. Furthermore some trackers allow you to > mark a comment as resolved (e.g. Github recently added reactions, which > can be used as ad-hoc markup). I think I'm starting to see what you mean. You're talking about a tight integration where a pull-request is also itself an issue, so the comments can be directly on the patch itself. As opposed to having issues and pull-request be two separate things that can refer to each other via an indirection. So this is particularly useful/meaningful when reviewing a proposed patch from another developer, rather than when interacting with an end-user trying to track down some bugs here's experiencing (which is the kind of use-case I've had in mind when working on BugIt). But indeed, the two use-cases would best be served by the same tool since after the bug is tracked a patch might show up to fix it, after which a review process will come up. Food for thought, thank you, Stefan