[Vm-dev] auto updates from issue tracker now blocked (was: [Pharo-dev] Put issues from cog issue tracker into pharo issue tracker)

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 2013-08-08, at 22:43, "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:

> 
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:59:15PM +0200, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, clearly excessive, but isn't the transition finished?
> 
> I have no idea if it is finished. Let's hope so.
> 
> Note that I have not actually turned anything off, I think it's worth a day
> or so of discussion before changing anything.
> 
>> From my point of view, the automatic updates from cog at googlecode were already
> sending too many trivial notifications to the list, and I was not finding it
> very useful. Maybe others find it helpful though. I'd be interested to hear
> from Eliot, Igor, or Esteban.
> 
> Dave

We should try to find a balance between information and noise. If there is no information at all, people tend to forget these facilities even exist.

For example, if it could be restricted to announce only new bugs I think it would be a very useful resource.

- Bert -



> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The question rather is about the future of this bug tracker... Who will use
>> it now? Will the futures reports be duplicated? Will issues be synchronized
>> on the two trackers? How? I don't understand a thing to this policy and the
>> goals, to me it sound like impulsive driven development.
>> 
>> 
>> 2013/8/8 David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> 
>>> 
>>> We have gotten well over 100 updates to the vm-dev list for issues being
>>> moved around between various issue trackers. This is excessive and seems
>>> to be of little relevance to the vm-dev list.
>>> 
>>> As list admin for the vm-dev list, I am responsible for keeping things like
>>> this under control. Unless I hear a convincing argument to the contrary, I
>>> will disable the cog at googlecode.com updates 24 hours from now.
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:04:44PM +0200, Henrik Johansen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 3:03 , Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 8 August 2013 14:14, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess that solves the question around the fate of the cog issue
>>> tracker: I
>>>>>> didn't mean a deprecation or similar, people can continue using it as
>>> they
>>>>>> want. I put for that links so people can go back and forth between
>>> the issue
>>>>>> trackers. My unique and good intention was to make those issues more
>>>>>> visible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks, Guillermo.
>>>>> I think everyone understands that your intention was for good, but
>>>>> when you don't inform
>>>>> people properly they tend to think worst (including me)
>>>>> 
>>>>> :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Igor Stasenko.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Especially when you end up spamming VM-dev with Cog issue tracker
>>> updates saying "Moved to fogbugz".
>>>> Even with the modified updates, why you'd need to mirror an existing
>>> tracker for a related but distinct project into the Pharo tracker, with the
>>> synchronization issues that might cause, js still a bit beyond me.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Henry
>>>> 
>>> 
>