From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Holger Hellmuth Subject: Re: [Opinions] Integrated tickets Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:15:47 +0100 Message-ID: <54625253.4070903@ira.uka.de> References: <20141105124429.GF15384@paksenarrion.iveqy.com> <54620522.4060600@ira.uka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Fredrik Gustafsson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 11 19:16:02 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XoFyw-0002VT-8u for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:15:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751608AbaKKSPy (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:15:54 -0500 Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.81]:43923 "EHLO iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750859AbaKKSPy (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:15:54 -0500 Received: from i20s141.iaks.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.32.141] helo=[172.16.22.120]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtpsa port 587 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1XoFyl-0004tl-Fe; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:15:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de esmtpsa 1415729747. Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 11.11.2014 um 18:17 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Holger Hellmuth writes: > >> Am 06.11.2014 um 19:45 schrieb Junio C Hamano: >>> This is a tangent, but I personally do not think "ticket" meshes >>> very well with "commit". If you already know which commit was >>> problematic, why are you annotating it with a ticket before >>> reverting it first? >> >> I would expect a ticket to be annotating the commit or version tag >> where the bug was found, which usually isn't the commit where the bug >> was introduced. [...] > Either way, I do not see how such an arrangement is the most > convenient way to organize the tickets and ask questions such as > "what are the known, untriaged, or unresolved issues in v1.8.5?", > "what are the issues that didn't exist in v1.7.0 but appear in > v1.8.5?", "what are the outstanding issues around refs handling that > are the highest priority?", etc. With your arrangement of data, any > of the common questions I think of asking would require a linear > scan of a commit range, followed by an enumeration and parsing of > all the notes attached to the commits to answer. > > So I would have to say that your expectation makes even less sense > than annotating an exact buggy commit with a note saying what is > broken by it. Not less sense, because with tickets attached to the exact buggy commit one would have the same problems answering the questions above. I don't dispute that tickets and commits don't mesh, it was the reason that you gave the first time that didn't sound right. Sorry if I have wasted your time, but looking at it from the management side removed any lingering doubts for me that there might be a benefit to an integration, even if some sort of indexing or database was used.