<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Marcus Denker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr" target="_blank">marcus.denker@inria.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Frank Shearar <<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 8 February 2013 22:51, Marcus Denker <<a href="mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr">marcus.denker@inria.fr</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Frank Shearar <<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On 8 February 2013 22:41, Marcus Denker <<a href="mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr">marcus.denker@inria.fr</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Camillo Bruni <<a href="mailto:camillobruni@gmail.com">camillobruni@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> That's not a valid comparison. In Squeak trunk bugs are getting fixed at a<br>
>>>>>> much higher rate<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Are you sure? The list that Craig showed at Fosdem was rather short.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Well, obviously Squeak is a rather smaller community, so that's hardly<br>
>>> surprising.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Squeakers _do_ need to use <a href="http://bugs.squeak.org" target="_blank">bugs.squeak.org</a>, but as I'm sure you know<br>
>>> from getting Pharo going, this is partly a matter of education.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> It is a matter of someone doing it.<br>
><br>
> ... and convincing people to do it is called education. Note my use of<br>
> the word "partly". Anyway, I'm not sure why you're getting stuck into<br>
> this. You sound annoyed.<br>
<br>
</div>I will always be annoyed about that topic… ;-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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?</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Marcus<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>best,<div>Eliot</div>