2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
[[meta title="Integrated issue tracking with Ikiwiki"]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Joey Hess, LinuxWorld.com
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[[template id=note text="""
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
First published on [LinuxWorld.com](http:://www.linuxworld.com/), a
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
publication of Network World Inc., 118 Turnpike Rd., Southboro, MA 01772.
|
|
|
|
"""]]
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
Wikis are not just for encyclopedias and websites anymore. You can use
|
|
|
|
Ikiwiki in combination with your revision control system to handle issue
|
|
|
|
tracking, news feeds, and other needs of a software project. The wiki can
|
|
|
|
make your bug reports as much a part of your software project as its code,
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
with interesting results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ikiwiki is a wiki engine with a twist. It's best
|
|
|
|
described by the term "wiki compiler". Just as a
|
|
|
|
typical software project consists of source code
|
|
|
|
that is stored in revision control and compiled with
|
|
|
|
`make` and `gcc`, an ikiwiki-based wiki is stored as
|
|
|
|
human editable source in a revision control system,
|
|
|
|
and built into HTML using ikiwiki.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ikiwiki uses your revision control system to track
|
|
|
|
changes and handle tasks such as rolling back changes and
|
|
|
|
merging edits. Because it takes advantage of revision
|
|
|
|
control, there are no annoying warnings about other
|
|
|
|
people editing a file, or finding yourself locked
|
|
|
|
out of a file because someone else started editing it
|
|
|
|
and left. Instead, the other person's changes will
|
|
|
|
be automatically merged with yours when you commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the rare cases where automatic merging fails
|
|
|
|
because of concurrent edits to the same part of a
|
|
|
|
page, regular commit conflict markers are shown in
|
|
|
|
the file to let you resolve the conflict, as you
|
|
|
|
would for conflicting edit in source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ikiwiki is a full-featured wiki that you can use
|
|
|
|
for a variety of purposes, from traditional wikis
|
|
|
|
to weblogs, podcasting, or even aggregating other
|
|
|
|
sites' RSS feeds into a Planet page. While people
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
are [[using|ikiwikiusers.html]]
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
Ikiwiki for purposes ranging from genealogy research
|
|
|
|
to shoe accessory sales, one thing it's especially
|
|
|
|
well suited for is collaborative software development,
|
|
|
|
including announcements, documentation, managing a
|
|
|
|
software project's web site, and even acting as an
|
|
|
|
issue tracking system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Building a project wiki with ikiwiki
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The simplest way to use ikiwiki is to build static
|
|
|
|
HTML files from source wiki files. This example builds
|
|
|
|
a wiki for an imaginary software project. The wiki
|
|
|
|
source files used in this example are available in the
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
[[examples/softwaresite]] section of ikiwiki's documentation.
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wiki$ ls
|
|
|
|
Makefile bugs.mdwn doc/ download.mdwn news/
|
|
|
|
bugs/ contact.mdwn doc.mdwn index.mdwn news.mdwn
|
|
|
|
wiki$ make
|
|
|
|
ikiwiki `pwd` html --wikiname FooBar --plugin=goodstuff \
|
|
|
|
--exclude=html --exclude=Makefile
|
|
|
|
wiki$ w3m -dump html/doc/faq.html
|
|
|
|
FooBar/ doc/ faq
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FooBar frequently asked questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Is this a real program?
|
|
|
|
2. Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Is this a real program?_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's just an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Really?_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Links: contact doc
|
|
|
|
Last edited Wed Nov 22 09:58:35 2006
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
If all you need is a simple static set of pages
|
|
|
|
that can be put up on a web site, or shipped with
|
|
|
|
a software package, this is a good starting point.
|
|
|
|
The examples included with ikiwiki include pages for
|
|
|
|
a news feed for the project (with RSS), an issue
|
|
|
|
tracker, and other pages users expect to see on a
|
|
|
|
project's website. You can check the wiki-format text
|
|
|
|
into revision control as part of the software project,
|
|
|
|
and tie it into the build system using the Makefile.
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ikiwiki can also be tied into the `post-commit` hook of your revision
|
|
|
|
control system, so that whenever a developer commits a change to a wiki
|
|
|
|
page in revision control, the project's web site is automatically updated.
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
The [[ikiwiki_tutorial|setup]] explains in
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
detail how to set this up using the Subversion, Git, TLA, and Mercurial
|
|
|
|
revision control systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tutorial also explains how to configure ikiwiki so that users can edit
|
|
|
|
pages using a web interface, with their changes committed back into revision
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
control. After all, one of the benefits of keeping a project's docs in a wiki
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
is to make it easy for users to improve them, so that busy software developers
|
|
|
|
don't have to. And if the wiki is being used for issue tracking, this will
|
|
|
|
let users post and follow up on bug reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Using a wiki for issue tracking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You might be wondering exactly how a wiki can be used as an issue tracking
|
|
|
|
system. Three key parts of ikiwiki come together to create an issue tracker:
|
|
|
|
pages, tags, and inlining.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
Each issue is described on a separate page in the
|
|
|
|
wiki. There can also be an associated Discussion page,
|
|
|
|
as well as other related subpages that can be used
|
|
|
|
to hold files used to reproduce the bug, or patches,
|
|
|
|
or other related files. Since each issue is a page,
|
|
|
|
standard wiki links can be used to link related
|
|
|
|
issues, or link issues with other pages in the wiki.
|
|
|
|
Each issue has its own unique URL. Since ikiwiki
|
|
|
|
supports subdirectories, it's usual to keep all the
|
|
|
|
bugs in a `bugs/` subdirectory. You might prefer
|
|
|
|
to separate bugs and todo items, with todo items in
|
|
|
|
their own 'todo/' subdirectory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While directories are useful for broad hierarchical
|
|
|
|
grouping, tags are better for categorizing issues
|
|
|
|
as bugs, wishlist items, security issues, patches,
|
|
|
|
or whatever other categories are useful. Bugs can
|
|
|
|
be tagged "moreinfo", "done" "unreproducible",
|
|
|
|
or "moreinfo", etc, to document different stages of
|
|
|
|
their lifecycle. A developer can take ownership of a
|
|
|
|
bug by tagging it with something like "owner/Joey".
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To tag a wiki page, edit it and add text such as "\[[tag done]]". Note that
|
|
|
|
adding a wiki link to "\[[done]]" will have the same categorisation effect
|
|
|
|
as a tag, but the link will show up in the body of the page, which is a
|
|
|
|
nice effect if used in a sentence such as "This was \[[done]] in version
|
|
|
|
1.1.". Another way to close a bug is to move it out of the `bugs/`
|
|
|
|
subdirectory, though this would prevent it from showing up in a list of
|
|
|
|
closed bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inlining is how ikiwiki pulls individual issue pages together into
|
|
|
|
something larger, be it a page listing recently opened bugs (with a form to
|
|
|
|
let a user easily post a new bug), or a page listing recently closed bugs,
|
|
|
|
or an index of all bugs, or all wishlist items, or RSS feeds for any of
|
|
|
|
these. A flexible syntax is used for specifying what kind of pages should
|
|
|
|
be inlined into a given page. A few examples:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* A typical list of all open bugs, with their full text, and a form to post new
|
|
|
|
bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
\[[inline pages="bugs/* and !link(done) and !*/Discussion" actions=yes postform=yes show=0]]
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Index of the 30 most recently fixed bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
\[[inline pages="bugs/* and link(done) and !*/Discussion" sort=mtime show=30 archive=yes]]
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Index of the 10 most recently active bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
\[[inline pages="bugs/* and !link(done) and !*/Discussion" sort=mtime show=10]]
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Open security issues.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
\[[inline pages="bugs/* and link(security) and !link(done) and !*/Discussion"]]
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Full text of bugs assigned to Joey.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
\[[inline pages="bugs/* and link(owner/Joey) and !link(done) and !*/Discussion" show=0]]
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may seem strange to consider using a wiki for issue tracking when there
|
|
|
|
are several dedicated bug tracking systems, like Bugzilla, that handle all
|
|
|
|
aspects of it already. The weakest part of using ikiwiki for issue
|
|
|
|
tracking, and certainly the place where a dedicated bug tracker like
|
|
|
|
Bugzilla shines in comparison, is storing and querying structured data
|
|
|
|
about bugs. Ikiwiki has little structured data except for page filenames
|
|
|
|
and tags, so if you need lots of queryable data such as what versions a bug
|
|
|
|
affects and what version it was fixed in, ikiwiki may not be a good fit for
|
|
|
|
your issue tracking.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
On the other hand, by using a wiki for issue
|
|
|
|
tracking, there is one less system for users and
|
|
|
|
developers to learn, and all the flexibility of a
|
|
|
|
wiki to take advantage of. Ikiwiki even supports
|
|
|
|
[OpenID](http://openid.net/), so it's easy for users
|
|
|
|
to use it for filing bugs without going through an
|
|
|
|
annoying registration process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developers who work offline, or at the other end of a
|
|
|
|
slow connection, might appreciate having a full copy
|
|
|
|
of the project bug tracking system, too.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realistically, there are plusses and minuses to letting users edit a
|
|
|
|
software project's documentation in a wiki. Like any wiki, to be
|
|
|
|
successful, some review is needed of the changes users make. In some cases
|
|
|
|
it will be easiest to limit the pages that users are allowed to edit.
|
|
|
|
Still, keeping the wiki open for user edits will probably turn up some
|
|
|
|
passionate users who prove very useful at filling in holes in the
|
|
|
|
documentation and cleaning up the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programmers are supposed to be bad at writing documentation, and putting a
|
|
|
|
project's docs into a wiki might not solve that. But it can make it a
|
|
|
|
little bit easier. Consider a programmer who's just coded up a new feature.
|
|
|
|
He can commit that to a development branch in revision control, and then go
|
|
|
|
update the docs on the web site to document it. But the feature isn't
|
|
|
|
available in a released version yet, so it's probably easier to skip
|
|
|
|
updating the website. Maybe once it's released, the web site will be
|
|
|
|
updated to mention the feature, but maybe (probably) not.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
Now consider what happens if instead the web site is a wiki that has its
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
source included in the project's revision control system. The programmer
|
|
|
|
codes up the feature, and can easily update the docs in the wiki to match.
|
|
|
|
When he commits his changes to a development branch, the docs are committed
|
|
|
|
too. Later, when that change is merged to the release branch, the doc
|
|
|
|
changes are also merged, and automatically go live on the web site.
|
|
|
|
Updating the documentation to reflect each change made and publishing it on
|
|
|
|
the website has become a standard part of the programmer's workflow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But this still requires programmers to write documentation, so maybe it
|
|
|
|
still won't work. Let's go back a step. Before the programmer wrote that
|
|
|
|
feature, he probably got some requests for it, and maybe he developed those
|
|
|
|
into a specification for how the feature should work. Since ikiwiki can be
|
|
|
|
used as an issue tracker, the requests were made using it, and were
|
|
|
|
collaboratively edited on the wiki, to develop the specification. Once the
|
|
|
|
feature is implemented, that issue can be closed. What better way to close
|
|
|
|
it than to move it out of the issue tracking system, and into the project's
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
documentation? In Subversion:
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
svn mv wiki/bugs/new_feature.mdwn wiki/doc/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the spec is written well enough to be useful for end user documentation,
|
|
|
|
the programmer doesn't have to write a lot of docs after all; that was done
|
|
|
|
when the feature was designed. By using ikiwiki for issue tracking, plus
|
|
|
|
editing the spec, plus documentation, plus the website, each of these steps
|
|
|
|
has built on the other and the programmer has had to do less busywork.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
A different example of how ikiwiki can tie
|
|
|
|
things together is how a security hole might be
|
|
|
|
handled. First it's discovered, and a bug filed about
|
|
|
|
it. When it's fixed, the commit that fixes the bug
|
|
|
|
can include a change to the bug's page, marking it
|
|
|
|
as done. Since it's a security hole, the project
|
|
|
|
needs to make an announcement right away so users
|
|
|
|
will know they need to upgrade. This announcement
|
|
|
|
can be added to the wiki's news feed, and committed
|
|
|
|
along with the fix, and the announcement can use a
|
|
|
|
regular wiki link to link to the bug that describes
|
|
|
|
the security hole in detail. If the security hole
|
|
|
|
also affects an older version of the software, the
|
|
|
|
fix, along with the wiki documentation for that fix,
|
|
|
|
can be merged into the branch for the older version.
|
2007-04-06 23:36:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another benefit of keeping the bug tracking system in revision control with
|
|
|
|
the wiki is that it allows for disconnected development. So there's no need
|
|
|
|
to be online to review the project's bug list, and there's no need to
|
|
|
|
remember to close fixed bugs once you're back online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For fans of distributed revision control, ikiwiki opens even more
|
|
|
|
possibilities. With a project's website and issue tracker kept in
|
|
|
|
distributed revision control with the project, these become distributed as
|
|
|
|
well, rather than centralized appendixes to the project. Developers can
|
|
|
|
pass around changesets that not only fix bugs, but mark them as done. If
|
|
|
|
large changes are being made in someone's branch, they can choose to put up
|
|
|
|
their own version of the website, use it to track bugs for that branch, and
|
|
|
|
when the branch is ready, all these changes can be merged back into the
|
|
|
|
mainline of the project.
|
2007-04-06 23:47:48 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2007-04-06 23:50:58 +02:00
|
|
|
Ikiwiki powers its own bug tracking system. To see how wiki bug tracking
|
2007-04-06 23:51:36 +02:00
|
|
|
works in practice, visit the [[bugs]] or [[TODO]] pages.
|