From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eric Schulte" Subject: Re: worg for bug reports and feature requests was: (Regression testing for org-mode) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:04:40 -0700 Message-ID: <87od1a1ynr.fsf_-_@gmail.com> References: <4900A06B.8020605@sift.info> <87wsfyx3tp.fsf@gmail.com> <490135D1.4030208@sift.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KtCyC-0003fg-Ub for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:04:13 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KtCyA-0003fT-W7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:04:12 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58855 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KtCyA-0003fQ-Qw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:04:10 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.245]:58668) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KtCyA-0002mr-D4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:04:10 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so769910rvb.6 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:04:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <490135D1.4030208@sift.info> (Robert Goldman's message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:41:21 -0500") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Robert Goldman Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Robert Goldman writes: > Avdi Grimm wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Eric Schulte wrote: >>> Also, should we start tracking bug reports somewhere (worg), so that >>> they can be claimed, tested against, and repaired? >> >> Not a bad idea. Normally I'd recommend just going with an established >> bug tracker like Trac or Lighthouse, but since Org is so great for >> managing tasks it seems only right that the developers should "eat >> their own dogfood" by using Org to track tickets :-) >> > > Actually, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the notion of using Org > to track tickets. The reason is not that org mightn't be up to the job, > but that the use of org with git won't be up to it. systems like trac > and bugzilla are set up to allow outsiders to post bugs, but if we use > git, then we're really raising the bar for bug submission. Instead of > filling out a form, a bug reporter would now have to figure out how to > use git, pull the org file, modify it, and then either push it (which > would require someone to authorize him or her) or submit it to someone > else who would push it. That seems inappropriate to me --- when you're > developing software a good bug report is very valuable, and one > shouldn't turn them away. > > Unless someone can figure out an easier way for people to submit bugs > with what worg has now, I'm inclined to say that trac or bugzilla would > be better. > Yes, you're correct the current method of contributing to worg is definitely too high of a bar for bug reports, or feature requests. That said once they were submitted, worg would be a good mechanism for tracking reported bugs/features, and for publishing lists of said reports on the web. Worg/org has the added advantage that it is already familiar to the entire org community. As you mention, the question seem to be: can we implement a simple interface for reporting bugs/feature-recs which will? 1) work well with worg as it's currently used, and 2) which won't constantly be begging for enhancements until we're re-implementing a full bug tracking system from scratch I don't think this would be too difficult, say... a simple web form, which could be embedded into one of the worg pages, and could drop bug/feature-recs into an org-mode file under git. Would anyone be up to trying to throw such a thing together? If only I had some more time... Thanks -- Eric