You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@bloodhound.apache.org by Apache Bloodhound <bl...@incubator.apache.org> on 2013/03/15 17:11:54 UTC
[Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
#467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
--------------------------+---------------
Reporter: jdreimann | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Version:
Resolution: |
--------------------------+---------------
https://bh-demo1.apache.org/about
Currently contains plenty of links to trac, but no links to any Bloodhound
pages.
Also, the Footer shows:
"Visit Apache Bloodhound at https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/" - I
think it should be "Get involved in [Apache Bloodhound]" and the [name]
should be a link to our site.
--
Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467>
Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Apache Bloodhound <bl...@incubator.apache.org>.
#467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
--------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: jdreimann | Owner: rjollos
Type: enhancement | Status: accepted
Priority: major | Milestone: Release 6
Component: ui design | Version: 0.4.0
Resolution: | Keywords: about
--------------------------+-----------------------
Comment (by rjollos):
Replying to [ticket:467 jdreimann]:
> Also, the Footer shows:
> "Visit Apache Bloodhound at https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/" - I
think it should be "Get involved in [Apache Bloodhound]" and the [name]
should be a link to our site.
Sounds good. Get involved ''in''/''with'' Apache Bloodhound. This early in
the morning, ''with'' sounds more correct. I'll see what sounds better in
the evening ;)
--
Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467#comment:2>
Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Apache Bloodhound <bl...@incubator.apache.org>.
#467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
--------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: jdreimann | Owner: rjollos
Type: enhancement | Status: accepted
Priority: major | Milestone: Release 6
Component: ui design | Version: 0.4.0
Resolution: | Keywords: about
--------------------------+-----------------------
Changes (by rjollos):
* status: new => accepted
* component: => ui design
* keywords: => about
* version: => 0.4.0
* milestone: => Release 6
* owner: => rjollos
Comment:
Replying to [ticket:467 jdreimann]:
> Also, the Footer shows:
> "Visit Apache Bloodhound at https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/" - I
think it should be "Get involved in [Apache Bloodhound]" and the [name]
should be a link to our site.
Sounds good. Get involved ''in''/''with'' Apache Bloodhound. This early in
the morning, ''with'' sounds more correct. I'll see what sounds better in
the evening ;)
--
Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467#comment:1>
Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Apache Bloodhound <bl...@incubator.apache.org>.
#467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
--------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: jdreimann | Owner: rjollos
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: major | Milestone: Release 6
Component: ui design | Version: 0.4.0
Resolution: fixed | Keywords: about
--------------------------+-----------------------
Changes (by rjollos):
* status: accepted => closed
* resolution: => fixed
--
Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467#comment:4>
Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si>.
Joe,
I find this excellent suggestions.
We should definitely follow up on them as they could be a selling point for
other Apache or ML centric projects.
Sadly though I am not sure how useful they would be outside of open source
(Apache) communities
as I have not observed ML centric commercial projects before.
Peter
On 16 March 2013 17:51, Joe Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Ryan is spot on here I think.
>
> I would like to think that we are welcoming to people who are not
> comfortable committing everything to the codebase, because their
> suggestions can still be valuable contributions. That's not wooly feel good
> talk but an approach to encourage contributions.
>
> By definition everyone that contributes here believes that issue trackers
> add value, so arguing against using our own may be a big turnoff to
> contributors.
>
> Greg and Brane you are highlighting some important problems with issue
> tracking software in general though, like the complete separation between
> information in issue trackers and the codebase.
>
> I believe we should try and address these issues in Apache Bloodhound
> instead of accepting them as a fact and working around them ourselves. Part
> of the value of dogfooding, like we are doing, is to feel these pain points
> and then do something about them. If Bloodhound deals with them better than
> other issue trackers we're probably on to a winner.
>
> So, what can we do?
> - Expose TODOs found in the source code comments in the Bloodhound UI,
> which should help people discovering them and developers being more
> comfortable to not also raise a ticket
> - Show relevant mailing list discussions on tickets, this may drive more
> discussing to the mailing list without the annoyance painful search in 3rd
> party hosted archives to refer to emails
> - Close tickets or comment on them via commit messages, removing the need
> to go back to the bloodhound UI to do so.
> - Improve the search in source code (that would have helped me add an
> inline comment)
> - Allow adding comments to the source code via the bloodhound UI (not code
> mind you)
>
> Some of these are no doubt bad ideas, but I would challenge you to come up
> with better ways to reduce the overhead an issue tracker introduces and
> improve it further instead of arguing we should essentially stop using it.
>
> - Joe
>
>
>
> ________________________
> @jdreimann - Twitter
> Sent from my phone
>
> On 16 Mar 2013, at 08:44, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about leaving some TODO markers in the page via commit? Maybe
> > somebody will follow up on that commit, and actually make the changes.
> >
> > Why should the marker be within a ticket, instead of the codebase
> > itself? Again, if somebody goes to fix this, then they have
> > double-work: make some commits, and make some ticket changes.
> >
> > The ticket system is entirely divorced from the codebase. Consider:
> > community members can spend the next month handling tickets. Does that
> > accomplish anything? Nope. Alternative: work within the actual
> > product, making changes/notes as they are discovered.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Apache Bloodhound
> > <bl...@incubator.apache.org> wrote:
> >> #467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
> >> --------------------------+---------------
> >> Reporter: jdreimann | Owner:
> >> Type: enhancement | Status: new
> >> Priority: major | Version:
> >> Resolution: |
> >> --------------------------+---------------
> >> https://bh-demo1.apache.org/about
> >> Currently contains plenty of links to trac, but no links to any
> Bloodhound
> >> pages.
> >>
> >> Also, the Footer shows:
> >> "Visit Apache Bloodhound at https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/" - I
> >> think it should be "Get involved in [Apache Bloodhound]" and the [name]
> >> should be a link to our site.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467>
> >> Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
> >> The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
>
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Joe Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com>.
Ryan is spot on here I think.
I would like to think that we are welcoming to people who are not comfortable committing everything to the codebase, because their suggestions can still be valuable contributions. That's not wooly feel good talk but an approach to encourage contributions.
By definition everyone that contributes here believes that issue trackers add value, so arguing against using our own may be a big turnoff to contributors.
Greg and Brane you are highlighting some important problems with issue tracking software in general though, like the complete separation between information in issue trackers and the codebase.
I believe we should try and address these issues in Apache Bloodhound instead of accepting them as a fact and working around them ourselves. Part of the value of dogfooding, like we are doing, is to feel these pain points and then do something about them. If Bloodhound deals with them better than other issue trackers we're probably on to a winner.
So, what can we do?
- Expose TODOs found in the source code comments in the Bloodhound UI, which should help people discovering them and developers being more comfortable to not also raise a ticket
- Show relevant mailing list discussions on tickets, this may drive more discussing to the mailing list without the annoyance painful search in 3rd party hosted archives to refer to emails
- Close tickets or comment on them via commit messages, removing the need to go back to the bloodhound UI to do so.
- Improve the search in source code (that would have helped me add an inline comment)
- Allow adding comments to the source code via the bloodhound UI (not code mind you)
Some of these are no doubt bad ideas, but I would challenge you to come up with better ways to reduce the overhead an issue tracker introduces and improve it further instead of arguing we should essentially stop using it.
- Joe
________________________
@jdreimann - Twitter
Sent from my phone
On 16 Mar 2013, at 08:44, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about leaving some TODO markers in the page via commit? Maybe
> somebody will follow up on that commit, and actually make the changes.
>
> Why should the marker be within a ticket, instead of the codebase
> itself? Again, if somebody goes to fix this, then they have
> double-work: make some commits, and make some ticket changes.
>
> The ticket system is entirely divorced from the codebase. Consider:
> community members can spend the next month handling tickets. Does that
> accomplish anything? Nope. Alternative: work within the actual
> product, making changes/notes as they are discovered.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Apache Bloodhound
> <bl...@incubator.apache.org> wrote:
>> #467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
>> --------------------------+---------------
>> Reporter: jdreimann | Owner:
>> Type: enhancement | Status: new
>> Priority: major | Version:
>> Resolution: |
>> --------------------------+---------------
>> https://bh-demo1.apache.org/about
>> Currently contains plenty of links to trac, but no links to any Bloodhound
>> pages.
>>
>> Also, the Footer shows:
>> "Visit Apache Bloodhound at https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/" - I
>> think it should be "Get involved in [Apache Bloodhound]" and the [name]
>> should be a link to our site.
>>
>> --
>> Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467>
>> Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
>> The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 3/16/13, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about leaving some TODO markers in the page via commit? Maybe
> somebody will follow up on that commit, and actually make the changes.
>
> Why should the marker be within a ticket, instead of the codebase
> itself? Again, if somebody goes to fix this, then they have
> double-work: make some commits, and make some ticket changes.
>
> The ticket system is entirely divorced from the codebase. Consider:
> community members can spend the next month handling tickets. Does that
> accomplish anything? Nope. Alternative: work within the actual
> product, making changes/notes as they are discovered.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
[...]
My quick opinion .
@gstein : u r indeed right . The gap between your proposed VCS-centric
approach and issue tracker-driven one resides in the fact that Trac
outside ASF will have repos browser integration and hooks .
If we had such things at the ASF , a single commit would be enough
because all that speech (or a relevant subset) would be written in the
commit message and a tiny «refs #XXX» would trigger Trac hooks handler
thus automatically creating one entry in all (may be many) referenced
tickets . So the single commit will do it all .
The big question is : may we have one such scenario deployed @ the ASF ?
if positive , then we would be able to do what you (@gstein) suggested
and keep track of it in the issue tracker ootb without any extra
effort .
otherwise , please let's figure out what to do ... but please I kindly
suggest not to spend much more time on this meta-subject than what
we'd spend coding , designing , ... our stuff .
@ryan : sometimes it's better to just commit and then ask if
appropriate . As a potential suggestion , I'd argue that there are
some situations where a bit of discussion is worthy :
- Gathering consensus on relevant features , approaches
to solve them, features with considerable impact on the
architecture (e.g. DB schema , MP architecture,
global vs product ... )
- Changesets or patches triggering regressions
(which would not be a subject of discussion if we had CI
installed in place ;)
- Reviews suggesting enhancements
- most of the time a simple status change (review , needinfo)
is more than enough
- ... a few more *similar* situations
;)
... just my ... well, I think its almost $3.00 and counting ;)
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
please, let's put this conversation in the right context ... beware of
thread subject
;)
On 3/18/13, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 18/03/13 10:55, Andrej Golcov wrote:
>> I agree with Gary and just want to add my opinion where I found usage of
>> issue tracker useful during BH development.
>>
>> BH project is quite young and often commits include a lot of code and it
>> can be hard to follow in-code TODOs for other developers. In such case,
>> adding a ticket with TODO task is more obvious to me. Using tickets for
>> planning of new features is also looks more convenient to me
>>
>> IMHO, where we can avoid unnecessary overhead is not using issue tracker
>> for small-to-medium obvious changes. IOW, if we see obvious problem or
>> improvement - just fix it and don't spend time for creating-closing
>> tickets. That also means that not all commit messages should contain
>> #ticket number.
>>
>> Cheers, Andrej
>
> Well, I don't think I want to see a particular distinction between small
> changes and larger (sets of) changes. I would argue that it is unlikely
> for anyone to be spending all their time doing lots of small commits in
> disparate areas of the code with no relationship between them over
> extended periods. Where changes are related, a single ticket could be
> raised to cover many such changes. Otherwise, for one-offs, the
> associated overhead should not really be a significant part of a
> committer's overall time.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Apache™ Bloodhound contributor
http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Featured article:
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 18/03/13 10:55, Andrej Golcov wrote:
> I agree with Gary and just want to add my opinion where I found usage of
> issue tracker useful during BH development.
>
> BH project is quite young and often commits include a lot of code and it
> can be hard to follow in-code TODOs for other developers. In such case,
> adding a ticket with TODO task is more obvious to me. Using tickets for
> planning of new features is also looks more convenient to me
>
> IMHO, where we can avoid unnecessary overhead is not using issue tracker
> for small-to-medium obvious changes. IOW, if we see obvious problem or
> improvement - just fix it and don't spend time for creating-closing
> tickets. That also means that not all commit messages should contain
> #ticket number.
>
> Cheers, Andrej
Well, I don't think I want to see a particular distinction between small
changes and larger (sets of) changes. I would argue that it is unlikely
for anyone to be spending all their time doing lots of small commits in
disparate areas of the code with no relationship between them over
extended periods. Where changes are related, a single ticket could be
raised to cover many such changes. Otherwise, for one-offs, the
associated overhead should not really be a significant part of a
committer's overall time.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Andrej Golcov <an...@digiverse.si>.
I agree with Gary and just want to add my opinion where I found usage of
issue tracker useful during BH development.
BH project is quite young and often commits include a lot of code and it
can be hard to follow in-code TODOs for other developers. In such case,
adding a ticket with TODO task is more obvious to me. Using tickets for
planning of new features is also looks more convenient to me
IMHO, where we can avoid unnecessary overhead is not using issue tracker
for small-to-medium obvious changes. IOW, if we see obvious problem or
improvement - just fix it and don't spend time for creating-closing
tickets. That also means that not all commit messages should contain
#ticket number.
Cheers, Andrej
On 16 March 2013 14:46, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 16/03/13 12:36, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How about leaving some TODO markers in the page via commit? Maybe
>>> somebody will follow up on that commit, and actually make the changes.
>>>
>>> Joe filled this ticket and he's primarily a designer rather than a
>> developer. It doesn't make sense for him to checkout and edit the codebase
>> in order to ask for something to be implemented.
>>
>>
>> Why should the marker be within a ticket, instead of the codebase
>>> itself? Again, if somebody goes to fix this, then they have
>>> double-work: make some commits, and make some ticket changes.
>>>
>>> Maybe you don't think that an issue tracker should exist at all? You
>> continue to suggest that we not use the issue tracker for anything as far
>> as I can tell. You seem to feel that Subversion and the mailing list are
>> entirely adequate, and an issue tracker would then be used for what? I
>> disagree, and I can't speak for others, but I get the impression that I'm
>> not alone in disagreeing.
>>
>>
>> The ticket system is entirely divorced from the codebase. Consider:
>>> community members can spend the next month handling tickets. Does that
>>> accomplish anything? Nope. Alternative: work within the actual
>>> product, making changes/notes as they are discovered.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest that we aim to improve the integration of the ticket system
>> with the code base and correct the flaws here, rather than giving up and
>> not using the ticket system.
>>
>> I'm not going to repeat any of my arguments of why I think the ticket
>> system is better and more valuable than a mailing list, but you can read
>> them in (1) if you like.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is better discussed on the mailing list, rather than moving the
>>> discussion over to a ticket.
>>>
>>> The majority of the community is on the dev@ list. By placing this
>>> question into a ticket, you're dividing the set of people who may want
>>> to discuss this item. You're also attempting to flow the discussion
>>> into the ticket, rather than here on the dev@ list, where the larger
>>> community resides.
>>>
>>> We are building an issue tracker and we'd like users to use that issue
>> tracker. Discussing issues may be the first interaction they have with
>> Bloodhound and it would be nice to expose them to our product.
>>
>> I'm willing to change how we do things for Bloodhound if there is *a
>> consensus among the community* that things should be done differently. I'd
>> like to hear if others agree with the viewpoint of our mentor. I
>> respectfully disagree.
>>
>> (1)
>> http://markmail.org/search/?q=**bloodhound%20#query:**
>> bloodhound%20list%3Aorg.**apache.incubator.bloodhound-**
>> dev%20order%3Adate-backward+**page:2+mid:3uuwhkztmtipdchw+**state:results<http://markmail.org/search/?q=bloodhound%20#query:bloodhound%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.bloodhound-dev%20order%3Adate-backward+page:2+mid:3uuwhkztmtipdchw+state:results>
>>
>>
> I have to agree with Ryan to a large extent. I don't see it as a
> particular hardship to be using the issue tracker to track our work and
> share it out. Using svn for this purpose seems like a poor substitute and
> could certainly be considered as being more difficult to use when we want
> note that a piece of work is to be done, see whether the work is in
> progress or if the work can be done by someone else. The idea that
> switching context is a particular hardship is a bit strange as there is
> already a switch of context to commit work.
>
> Where I agree with our mentors is that we are getting too much commenting
> on issues in the issue tracker if we assume that the larger developer
> audience is on the dev mailing list.
>
> So, I suggest that we
>
> * continue to raise tickets for all our work,
> * redirect discussion and request for clarifications to the dev
> mailing list as much as possible,
> * continue to use ticket comments to record revision numbers for that
> ticket - note that it can be appropriate to list multiple revisions
> in a single comment depending on the period over which work is done
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
>
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 16/03/13 12:36, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How about leaving some TODO markers in the page via commit? Maybe
>> somebody will follow up on that commit, and actually make the changes.
>>
> Joe filled this ticket and he's primarily a designer rather than a
> developer. It doesn't make sense for him to checkout and edit the codebase
> in order to ask for something to be implemented.
>
>
>> Why should the marker be within a ticket, instead of the codebase
>> itself? Again, if somebody goes to fix this, then they have
>> double-work: make some commits, and make some ticket changes.
>>
> Maybe you don't think that an issue tracker should exist at all? You
> continue to suggest that we not use the issue tracker for anything as far
> as I can tell. You seem to feel that Subversion and the mailing list are
> entirely adequate, and an issue tracker would then be used for what? I
> disagree, and I can't speak for others, but I get the impression that I'm
> not alone in disagreeing.
>
>
>> The ticket system is entirely divorced from the codebase. Consider:
>> community members can spend the next month handling tickets. Does that
>> accomplish anything? Nope. Alternative: work within the actual
>> product, making changes/notes as they are discovered.
>>
> I'd suggest that we aim to improve the integration of the ticket system
> with the code base and correct the flaws here, rather than giving up and
> not using the ticket system.
>
> I'm not going to repeat any of my arguments of why I think the ticket
> system is better and more valuable than a mailing list, but you can read
> them in (1) if you like.
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is better discussed on the mailing list, rather than moving the
>> discussion over to a ticket.
>>
>> The majority of the community is on the dev@ list. By placing this
>> question into a ticket, you're dividing the set of people who may want
>> to discuss this item. You're also attempting to flow the discussion
>> into the ticket, rather than here on the dev@ list, where the larger
>> community resides.
>>
> We are building an issue tracker and we'd like users to use that issue
> tracker. Discussing issues may be the first interaction they have with
> Bloodhound and it would be nice to expose them to our product.
>
> I'm willing to change how we do things for Bloodhound if there is *a
> consensus among the community* that things should be done differently. I'd
> like to hear if others agree with the viewpoint of our mentor. I
> respectfully disagree.
>
> (1)
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=bloodhound%20#query:bloodhound%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.bloodhound-dev%20order%3Adate-backward+page:2+mid:3uuwhkztmtipdchw+state:results
>
I have to agree with Ryan to a large extent. I don't see it as a
particular hardship to be using the issue tracker to track our work and
share it out. Using svn for this purpose seems like a poor substitute
and could certainly be considered as being more difficult to use when we
want note that a piece of work is to be done, see whether the work is in
progress or if the work can be done by someone else. The idea that
switching context is a particular hardship is a bit strange as there is
already a switch of context to commit work.
Where I agree with our mentors is that we are getting too much
commenting on issues in the issue tracker if we assume that the larger
developer audience is on the dev mailing list.
So, I suggest that we
* continue to raise tickets for all our work,
* redirect discussion and request for clarifications to the dev
mailing list as much as possible,
* continue to use ticket comments to record revision numbers for that
ticket - note that it can be appropriate to list multiple revisions
in a single comment depending on the period over which work is done
Cheers,
Gary
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 16.03.2013 13:36, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> > Maybe you don't think that an issue tracker should exist at all? You
> > continue to suggest that we not use the issue tracker for anything as
> > far as I can tell. You seem to feel that Subversion and the mailing
> > list are entirely adequate, and an issue tracker would then be used
> > for what? I disagree, and I can't speak for others, but I get the
> > impression that I'm not alone in disagreeing.
>
> An issue tracker should be used for tracking issues, not for discussing
> designs or writing code. That's the point Greg and I have been trying to
> make. More often than not, instead of filing an issue about a minor nit,
> it would make more sense to simply fix said nit in the code or
> documentation or wherever.
>
It makes sense to have design discussions on the mailing list. In some
cases we probably do have too much ticket noise. I feel we might need to
make some minor adjustments in how we use the issue tracker, not do a 180.
Greg's viewpoint on not using the issue tracker seems more extreme than
yours, and regardless, I can see room for improvement, but can't agree with
taking the specific steps Greg proposed in the 3 tickets that he objected
to.
I still don't see a problem with #467 and feel that tickets should be used
for implementation of change requests, and should tie change descriptions
to the codebase in which the changes were made. That is how companies I've
worked for have used the issue tracker, that is how the Trac/Trac-Hacks
community uses the issue tracker, and I think it works quite well.
For this project, I don't think we need a ticket for every change, however
#467 was the case of a designer opening a ticket and requesting a concise
change. It seems like noise to put something like this on the mailing list
and effectively force everyone to look at it, and I certainly don't see
time savings or any other improvements from this. Rather, we have a ticket
to describe the change, tie it to the code changes, and if anyone has
further input down the road they can dig up the ticket and see why and
where the change was made.
> When I first started looking at this project, I was astounded that I
> could find hardly any actual code commits in the noise of ticket changes
> on the bloodhound-commits@ list -- and at that point ceased to wonder
> why not much progress had been made in almost a year.
>
I would disagree that "not much progress has been made in almost a year",
particularly since there were two developers on the project for most of
that time. That said, let's always aim to do better and move faster!
> This is a bit like the hammer and nail story -- just because you have an
> issue tracker doesn't mean every passing thought needs to be recorded in
> it.
>
Sure, not "every passing thought". We seem to disagree significantly on
where the line should be drawn. You and Greg seem to tend towards "no
thoughts", or at least Greg seems to feel that "no thoughts" should occur
on the mailing list, and you seem to suggest "few thoughts". I also see
your and Greg's view as being "subversion-centric". As in, why have an
issue tracker when you can just do everything in SVN and on the mailing
list?
Finally, I will just say that I spend a small amount of time interacting
with the issue tracker on a typical day, and I feel that I make a lot of
commits, but I will continually aim to do better.
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 16.03.2013 13:36, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> Maybe you don't think that an issue tracker should exist at all? You
> continue to suggest that we not use the issue tracker for anything as
> far as I can tell. You seem to feel that Subversion and the mailing
> list are entirely adequate, and an issue tracker would then be used
> for what? I disagree, and I can't speak for others, but I get the
> impression that I'm not alone in disagreeing.
An issue tracker should be used for tracking issues, not for discussing
designs or writing code. That's the point Greg and I have been trying to
make. More often than not, instead of filing an issue about a minor nit,
it would make more sense to simply fix said nit in the code or
documentation or wherever.
When I first started looking at this project, I was astounded that I
could find hardly any actual code commits in the noise of ticket changes
on the bloodhound-commits@ list -- and at that point ceased to wonder
why not much progress had been made in almost a year.
This is a bit like the hammer and nail story -- just because you have an
issue tracker doesn't mean every passing thought needs to be recorded in it.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about leaving some TODO markers in the page via commit? Maybe
> somebody will follow up on that commit, and actually make the changes.
>
Joe filled this ticket and he's primarily a designer rather than a
developer. It doesn't make sense for him to checkout and edit the codebase
in order to ask for something to be implemented.
> Why should the marker be within a ticket, instead of the codebase
> itself? Again, if somebody goes to fix this, then they have
> double-work: make some commits, and make some ticket changes.
>
Maybe you don't think that an issue tracker should exist at all? You
continue to suggest that we not use the issue tracker for anything as far
as I can tell. You seem to feel that Subversion and the mailing list are
entirely adequate, and an issue tracker would then be used for what? I
disagree, and I can't speak for others, but I get the impression that I'm
not alone in disagreeing.
> The ticket system is entirely divorced from the codebase. Consider:
> community members can spend the next month handling tickets. Does that
> accomplish anything? Nope. Alternative: work within the actual
> product, making changes/notes as they are discovered.
>
I'd suggest that we aim to improve the integration of the ticket system
with the code base and correct the flaws here, rather than giving up and
not using the ticket system.
I'm not going to repeat any of my arguments of why I think the ticket
system is better and more valuable than a mailing list, but you can read
them in (1) if you like.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is better discussed on the mailing list, rather than moving the
> discussion over to a ticket.
>
> The majority of the community is on the dev@ list. By placing this
> question into a ticket, you're dividing the set of people who may want
> to discuss this item. You're also attempting to flow the discussion
> into the ticket, rather than here on the dev@ list, where the larger
> community resides.
>
We are building an issue tracker and we'd like users to use that issue
tracker. Discussing issues may be the first interaction they have with
Bloodhound and it would be nice to expose them to our product.
I'm willing to change how we do things for Bloodhound if there is *a
consensus among the community* that things should be done differently. I'd
like to hear if others agree with the viewpoint of our mentor. I
respectfully disagree.
(1)
http://markmail.org/search/?q=bloodhound%20#query:bloodhound%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.bloodhound-dev%20order%3Adate-backward+page:2+mid:3uuwhkztmtipdchw+state:results
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
How about leaving some TODO markers in the page via commit? Maybe
somebody will follow up on that commit, and actually make the changes.
Why should the marker be within a ticket, instead of the codebase
itself? Again, if somebody goes to fix this, then they have
double-work: make some commits, and make some ticket changes.
The ticket system is entirely divorced from the codebase. Consider:
community members can spend the next month handling tickets. Does that
accomplish anything? Nope. Alternative: work within the actual
product, making changes/notes as they are discovered.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Apache Bloodhound
<bl...@incubator.apache.org> wrote:
> #467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
> --------------------------+---------------
> Reporter: jdreimann | Owner:
> Type: enhancement | Status: new
> Priority: major | Version:
> Resolution: |
> --------------------------+---------------
> https://bh-demo1.apache.org/about
> Currently contains plenty of links to trac, but no links to any Bloodhound
> pages.
>
> Also, the Footer shows:
> "Visit Apache Bloodhound at https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/" - I
> think it should be "Get involved in [Apache Bloodhound]" and the [name]
> should be a link to our site.
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467>
> Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
> The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Friday, March 15, 2013, Apache Bloodhound wrote:
> #467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
> --------------------------+---------------
> Reporter: jdreimann | Owner:
> Type: enhancement | Status: new
> Priority: major | Version:
> Resolution: |
> --------------------------+---------------
> https://bh-demo1.apache.org/about
> Currently contains plenty of links to trac, but no links to any Bloodhound
> pages.
>
Joe, the most obvious candidate for the link is the //Apache Bloodhound//
text in the first sentence:
Standing on the shoulders of Trac 1.0.1 , Apache Bloodhound ...
Is that what you had in mind?
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Apache Bloodhound <
bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org> wrote:
> #467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
> --------------------------+-----------------------
> Reporter: jdreimann | Owner: rjollos
> Type: enhancement | Status: accepted
> Priority: major | Milestone: Release 6
> Component: ui design | Version: 0.4.0
> Resolution: | Keywords: about
> --------------------------+-----------------------
>
> Comment (by rjollos):
>
> (In [1457620])
>
> Refs #467 : Added URLs to the Bloodhound project on the About page and in
> the footer. Added the Bloodhound logo to the About page.
The footer has a link to issues.apache.org/bloodhound and the About page
has a link to incubator.apache.org/bloodhound. Just let me know if I should
make any adjustments to that.
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #467: About page should include a link to
Apache Bloodhound
Posted by Apache Bloodhound <bl...@incubator.apache.org>.
#467: About page should include a link to Apache Bloodhound
--------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: jdreimann | Owner: rjollos
Type: enhancement | Status: accepted
Priority: major | Milestone: Release 6
Component: ui design | Version: 0.4.0
Resolution: | Keywords: about
--------------------------+-----------------------
Comment (by rjollos):
(In [1457620])
Refs #467 : Added URLs to the Bloodhound project on the About page and in
the footer. Added the Bloodhound logo to the About page.
--
Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/467#comment:3>
Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker