On 05/31/2011 04:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2011-05-30 at 22:43 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
One of the conclusions the study group came to was that there should
be good integration between the tracker system and the SCM. That was
in the days before distributed SCMs were common, and in a commercial
context, so I'm not sure how well our reasoning would stand up for the
current context, but I see it's been mentioned elsewhere and I think
it's a significant consideration, at least.
What kind of functionality would (good) SCM integration provide?
Well, the most obvious one is that when a commit (or merge or push) is
made that fixes a bug, the bug is annotated and its status updated. I
know I've wasted plenty of time in the past first hunting for bugs and
then hunting for the fixes, which aren't always clear from the commit
messages.
In a more centralized system you can also have fairly tightly integrated
workflow (e.g. you can have the tracker open a branch when a bug is
assigned, and you can prevent one being created without an issue being
assigned) but that doesn't seem like such a good fit for us, nor for
anyone using a distributed system like git. You could also argue that
it's a bad thing for commercial organizations, but that's a debate for
another place. The reason we wanted such a thing is that we were
spending significant time managing the workflow issues, and doing tidy up.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
