On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shea...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 8 February 2013 22:51, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> > >> On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shea...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> On 8 February 2013 22:41, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's not a valid comparison. In Squeak trunk bugs are getting > fixed at a > >>>>>> much higher rate > >>>> > >>>> Are you sure? The list that Craig showed at Fosdem was rather short. > >>> > >>> Well, obviously Squeak is a rather smaller community, so that's hardly > >>> surprising. > >>> > >>> Squeakers _do_ need to use bugs.squeak.org, but as I'm sure you know > >>> from getting Pharo going, this is partly a matter of education. > >>> > >> > >> It is a matter of someone doing it. > > > > ... and convincing people to do it is called education. Note my use of > > the word "partly". Anyway, I'm not sure why you're getting stuck into > > this. You sound annoyed. > > I will always be annoyed about that topic… ;-) > Quite right too. The issue for me is that the bug trackers are not well-enough integrated into my Squeak work flow. Montivcello is beautifully integrated into the work flow and hence a joy to use. I'm not proposing reinventing the wheel and writing a Squeak/Pharo bug tracker (although we did that at ParcPlace/ObjectShare/Cincom and the results were excellent). But at the same time I don't want to go to an external web page to read bugs (althoguh I'm willing to) and I *definitely* don't want to go there to update fixes. I want to update fixes from my Monticello check-in and/or TestRunner. I wonder whether it is feasible to provide a skin to an existing, popular bug tracker so that at least one can have the updating/closing side of the work-flow brought much closer to Monticello check-in/TestRunner? Wouldn't the ideal work-flow be built around an interface between TestRunner and a bug tracker? If we built such an interface wouldn't there be much greater use? Imagine being able to have one-click (plus filling in a description in a submit dialogue) bug creation from TestRunner? And e.g. using pragmas or some-such, add the state and history, or simply the pointer to the bug tracker page, embedded in the test case? Then one could read, in-image, the state of the bug long after it was fixed, in the context of the test that demonstrated the bug and its fix. > > Marcus > -- best, Eliot