Al Tobey <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sep 15, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Avi Miller wrote: >> > On 16/09/10 1:59 AM, Markus Roberts wrote: >> If anyone does know of a >> great tool (or even wants to suggest an >> incremental improvement) we'd >> love to hear it. > > By far the best tool I've seen for project bug and >> issue tracking, along with code review is the Atlassian[1] combination of >> JIRA[2], FishEye[3] and Crucible[4]. > > I've run that combination in the >> past and it really is tightly integrated and well written. Particularly the >> review workflows built into Crucible and the integration into JIRA for bug >> and issue tracking. > > However, in order to get the most benefit, it would >> mean replacing Redmine. >> >> I've seriously thought about this a couple of times, and I'm still not >> entirely averse. We do have a lot of investment in Redmine, however, and >> I'm certainly hesitant to just dump it. >> >> Anyone else have similar experience they can relate? > > I think I'd almost rather see a lightweight tool created for this purpose, > except with its true focus being on providing integrated git workflow for > puppet policies.
Having gone through the process of tool selection and roll-out a whole bunch of times in a range of organisations, and to a range of target audiences which include both "only developers", "a mix of dev and designers", and "some non-tech people doing semi-dev work" ... Yeah. Don't go down this path. It sounds seductively easy to write appropriate tools, but they are annoyingly fiddly at the edges. Pick up something already out there, ideally that you can customize, and use that. > I've demoed Reviewboard and Gerrit for my people and got little support. > Gerrit was especially over-complicated for people still fresh with source > control, let alone advanced git usage. I think it is, generally speaking, a mistake to target your tools at people who don't know your VCS. You are better producing "helper" scripts that wrap on top of or integrate with the VCS, and which make it easier to work with your tools. Something like 'git puppet submit' is pretty darn easy to write and make work with Gerrit, ReviewBoard, or any other tool you select, and wraps up all the application and process specific knowledge into a little ol' Ruby script that your users can work with. However, if you are really looking for something lighter I would suggest using PatchWork (http://ozlabs.org/~jk/projects/patchwork/) together with the facilities in git to send email to a mailing list. Adapt the process to be that contributors use git (and, of course, anything else that can generate a patch) to send patches by email to this list, and monitor it with PatchWork. Then you have an email-based discussion and handling process for patches, plus a support tool that watches in the background and allows you to discuss them here, but review and mark as "complete" centrally. > Puppet policies (and possible core) need something lighter than the > full-time developer oriented tools. I would rather approach it as Gerrit, et al, being used, and then working out how to ensure that more casual contributors can still get involved. However, that is fairly heavy-weight, so perhaps the puppet community might be better working with PatchWork and an LKML style workflow for contributions. Either path, though, probably involves having developers spend some time handling contributions to their areas of expertise, or having a semi-dedicated "public contributions" handler... Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman ✉ [email protected] ☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
