Re: GOP-PROP 13: patch management tools

[Colin Campbell]

On 11-09-21 04:13 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 09:04:39PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> > My impression is that the main problem is the "duplicancy" of data and
> > e-mail threads.  Over and over again i'm getting lost, for example:
> I can't see that going away.
> - email is the most convenient option for quick discussion
> - rietveld is the best option (other than other potential review
>    tools) for discussing specific bits of code
> - issue tracker keeps comments in a more organized "archived"
>    state
>
> It would be nice if specific patches/issues were discussed on
> either rietveld or the issue tracker, but I can't see everybody
> doing this.
>
> > One thing comes to my mind: there is some code revieving tool on
> > Google Code.  I remember that i saw it being used in some other
> > project.  It's a bit hidden, but i managed to found some info:
> > http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/CodeReviews
> > Looks that we need to add our source code to the Google Code to be
> > able to use that.
> > I think this may be worth considering.  Could we add our source to
> > Google Code and see what we can do then?
> Of course it's worth considering, but I don't see that cutting
> down on the duplicate discussions.
>
> > Another thing: i'd consider adding a policy about separating
> > discussion about code and notation: comments on issue tracker should
> > be about notation/features (i.e. what should the output be?  What
> > syntax do we want to use?) and all comments about code itself (is the
> > indentation correct?  Does it pass regtests?) should be done at code
> > revieving tool.
> I don't see that going well; the people we most want comments from
> (i.e. senior developers) are the people who are the least likely
> to log into a website and comment there.
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham


I'm solidly with Janek here, Graham.  As it sits, a person wanting to 
follow the trail of a (bug/issue/enhancement request) has to find the 
thing on two separate web-sites, where developers log in despite your 
comment above, using two different tracking numbers and possibly two 
different descriptions.  The curious person also has to read -devel and 
-bug to be sure nothing relevant was sent mail-list only.  No doubt it 
would be a wrench converting to a code management system, but I firmly 
believe the benefits from having all relevant material, discussions, 
patches and reviews, in a single place, are immediately large, and that 
although there is no way to quantify it  but one can reasonably expect 
it, a synergy will develop where unexpected things happen as a result of 
seeing a bigger picture.

I know this is a change from my earlier vote for your collection of 
automagic scripts and linkages, but ISTM that's reinventing wheels in an 
effort to avoid change.  We are accustomed to using two quite different 
tools, each very good at what it does, but with upwards of 600 issues 
live at any time, I don't think tying a rock to a stick with a lot more 
thongs is the answer: I think we need a hammer designed for the purpose.

Cheers
Colin

--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both 
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )