Yes, clever scripts would solve all of our problems :) But there is the issue of having a server to run these scripts on, not to mention writing the scripts in the first place.
Aaron Meurer On Apr 29, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Haz wrote: > I think some clever scripts using the github api would solve most of that, no? > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Technically, Google Code has a better tag system, because it lets you have > tags like our Priority, Status, and Type that can only take one value per > issue. > > Also, the default labels functionality doesn't seem to be as strong. It also > doesn't seem to have the ability to automatically do things based on labels > (like in Google Code, we send updates of issues with the review labels to the > patches list). > > Aaron Meurer > > On Apr 29, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Vinzent Steinberg wrote: > > > It seems that github supports any feature (including tags) I currently > > can think of, so maybe we should really consider a move. > > > > BTW, I just read [1], so there is a gist API, we can consider it for > > sympy-bot. > > > > Vinzent > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/blog/846-new-issues-and-gist-api > > > > On Apr 29, 10:16 pm, Haz <christian.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> We could also use the tools that that script uses > >>>> (http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/IssueTrackerAPI > >>> andhttps://github.com/ask/python-github2) to write the bot that I was > >>> talking about below. > >> > >>> Aaron Meurer > >> > >>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Haz wrote: > >> > >>> -https://github.com/cfinke/googlecode2github > >> > >>> <https://github.com/cfinke/googlecode2github> ? > >> > >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Aaron S. Meurer > >>> <asmeu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >>>> Well, it does indeed seem that they've improved. > >> > >>>> Show me a way to transfer issues from Google Code to GitHub, and you may > >>>> have sold me. > >> > >>>> Aaron Meurer > >> > >>>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Haz wrote: > >> > >>>> Integration with pull requests > >>>> -https://github.com/blog/712-pull-requests-2-0 > >> > >>>> New issue stuff: > >>>> -https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation > >> > >>>> <https://github.com/blog/712-pull-requests-2-0> What about a gradual > >>>> migration? Prohibit new issues on Google, and gradually close them all > >>>> off. > >> > >>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Aaron S. Meurer > >>>> <asmeu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >>>>> Well, first off, I'm not even sure if that would solve the problem. How > >>>>> well does GitHub integrate their issues with their pull requests. > >> > >>>>> Anyway, the conditions for moving to any other issue tracker would be: > >> > >>>>> - It would need to be at least as powerful as Google Code. Ideally, if > >>>>> we are going through the hassle to move, it should be more powerful. > >>>>> This > >>>>> is talking about things like labels and stuff (I'd need to check to see > >>>>> how > >>>>> good GitHub is with this). > >> > >>>>> - We would need to transfer all the current issues over to the new > >>>>> tracker, keeping all numbers the same. This is the most important one, > >>>>> and > >>>>> also the most difficult. It's important because we have references to > >>>>> issue > >>>>> numbers *everywhere*: in the code, in the commit log, in the mailing > >>>>> list, > >>>>> etc. > >> > >>>>> Currently, Google Code makes it kind of hard to export the issues (you > >>>>> have to do it manually; there's no xml or svn output). > >> > >>>>> Personally, I'm pretty content with the Google Code issue tracker, other > >>>>> than the issues I mentioned below. It works well, and has some nice > >>>>> features (like the advanced search). > >> > >>>>> I haven't played with GitHub's issue tracker too much, but from what I > >>>>> saw, it isn't as good (yet). > >> > >>>>> Aaron Meurer > >> > >>>>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Haz wrote: > >> > >>>>> What were the road-blocks from moving the issues to github again? > >> > >>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Aaron S. Meurer > >>>>> <asmeu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >>>>>> Does anyone have any ideas on ways that we can better manage the pull > >>>>>> requests at GitHub and the issues at Google Code? Right now there are > >>>>>> some > >>>>>> issues: > >> > >>>>>> - People forget to reference the issue number on the pull request or > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> pull request on the issue. The best case is that I notice this and > >>>>>> fix it, > >>>>>> but it's possible that people don't even realize that there is an > >>>>>> issue for > >>>>>> the pull request or visa versa. > >> > >>>>>> - Even when people remember to reference the pull request on the issue, > >>>>>> either they forget or don't have permissions to add the NeedsReview and > >>>>>> username labels. I think this can be partially fixed by making sure > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> all regular contributors are members in the Google Code project so > >>>>>> that they > >>>>>> can add labels to issues. I used to be able to handle this manually > >>>>>> pretty > >>>>>> easily, but lately the traffic has increased by quite a bit (because > >>>>>> of the > >>>>>> GSoC students) and it's getting harder to manage. Ironically, this > >>>>>> makes > >>>>>> the labels even more essential. > >> > >>>>>> - People forget to check the corresponding issue before pushing in a > >>>>>> pull request, like as happened with issue 2302/pull 257. I am just > >>>>>> using > >>>>>> this as a recent example, I am not trying to blame Chris here. > >> > >>>>>> - It's easy to type the wrong issue or pull number. Pull 257 is also > >>>>>> an > >>>>>> example of this (and again, I don't want to blame anyone here; the > >>>>>> point is > >>>>>> that typos are easy to make). > >> > >>>>>> Does anyone know if it would be possible to have some kind of more > >>>>>> automated system, where most or all of the above are done > >>>>>> automatically? In > >>>>>> particular, it would be nice if the following could be automated: > >> > >>>>>> - If a pull request is created, then the issue should be marked as > >>>>>> NeedsReview with a label of the person's name. This could be based on > >>>>>> referencing an issue number in a pull request. > >> > >>>>>> - If someone puts the NeedsBetterPatch or even PassedReview label on an > >>>>>> issue, the pull request should be notified. > >> > >>>>>> - All pull requests should have an issue, I think. Maybe something > >>>>>> could warn someone if they forgot to reference an issue number in a > >>>>>> pull > >>>>>> request, and ask them if they want to create a new issue for it, or > >>>>>> reference an already existing one. > >> > >>>>>> - In the pull requests, automatically change "issue 1234" to "[issue > >>>>>> 1234: solve(4**x-x**4, x) (and similar) should give all solutions]( > >>>>>> http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1234)", or add that as > >>>>>> a new comment. This would make it so that you could see the issue > >>>>>> title, > >>>>>> which would let you verify that the number was correct, and it also > >>>>>> would > >>>>>> auto-link it, which would make navigation easier. > >> > >>>>>> With that, you would just have to make sure that you reference the > >>>>>> issue > >>>>>> number in the pull request (it could also parse commit messages), and > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> rest would be taken care of. > >> > >>>>>> I'm thinking this should be done by some kind of bot somewhere, but > >>>>>> even > >>>>>> a script that you run from your computer and goes through and it does > >>>>>> it > >>>>>> from your account (after checking to see if it has already been done > >>>>>> or not) > >>>>>> would work. > >> > >>>>>> I'm putting out a request to the community, because I don't know how to > >>>>>> program such a thing. Does this sound like a good idea? Does it sound > >>>>>> feasible? > >> > >>>>>> Aaron Meurer > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "sympy" group. > > To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
