urosm
/
ikiwiki
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

response

master
Joey Hess 2007-12-12 17:12:08 -05:00
parent d46c22c7e9
commit 610e67199c
1 changed files with 15 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

16
doc/tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki/discussion.mdwn
View File

@ -2,6 +2,10 @@ From IRC messages.. may later format into a nicer display (time is limited):
Just wondering, who's using ikiwiki as their bug-tracking system? I'm trying to root out bug-tracking systems that work with GIT and so far like ikiwiki for docs, but haven't yet figured out the best way to make it work for bug-tracking.
> I know of only a few:
> * This wiki.
> * The "awesome" window manager.
I suppose having a separate branch for public web stuff w/ the following workflow makes sense:
* Separate master-web and master branches
@ -9,8 +13,18 @@ I suppose having a separate branch for public web stuff w/ the following workflo
* cherry-pick changes from master-web into master when they are sane
* regularly merge master -> master-web
> That's definitely one way to do it. For this wiki, I allow commits
> directly to master via the web, and sanity check after the fact. Awesome
> doesn't allow web commits at all.
Bug origination point: ... anybody have ideas for this? Create branch at bug origination point and merge into current upstream branches? (I guess this would be where cherry-picking would work best, since the web UI can't do this)
> Not sure what you mean.
Bug naming: any conventions/ideas on how to standardize? Any suggestions on methods of linking commits to bugs without having to modify the bug in each commit?
-- [[harningt]]
> I don't worry about naming, but then I don't refer to the bug urls
> anywhere, so any names are ok. When I make a commit to fix a bug, I mark
> the bug done in the same commit, which links things.
-- [[harningt]]