On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker at inria.fr>wrote:

>
> On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 8 February 2013 22:51, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker at inria.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8 February 2013 22:41, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker at inria.fr>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130208/eaf06c92/attachment.htm