Re: git-bug: Distributed bug tracker embedded in git

["Michael Muré" <batolettre@gmail.com>]

Here was my reasoning for the naming choice:

- I need something meaningful
- I need something that encompass the idea and features of a bug
tracker because the narrower ideas and actions will be in sub commands
- other projects already used other words, in particular "issue"
- it kind of sounds and looks good

You say that it's a namespace grab and I understand that, but in the
other hand, there is not that much freedom when choosing a name. Sorry
if I'm stepping on someone's toe :-|

2018-08-19 0:50 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> (cc-ing Elijah Newren for the points about merging)
> Hi again,
>
> To avoid the other thread shadowing more important things:
>
> Michael Muré wrote:
>
>> Someone suggested in the Hacker News thread [0] to post it here as well.
>
> Thanks to Ævar for that.
>
> [...]
>> git-bug use as identifier the hash of the first commit in the chain
>> of commit of the bug.
>
> Clever!  I like this approach to the naming problem.
>
> [...]
>> Git doesn't provide a low-level command to rebase a branch onto
>> another without touching the index.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.  There's been some recent work to make
> Git's merge code (also used for cherry-pick) less reliant on the index
> and worktree.  See https://crbug.com/git/12 for some references.
> There's also been some heavy refactoring of "git rebase" code to be in
> C and be able to make use of library functions instead of being a
> shell script.
>
> That's all to say that we're in a pretty good place to consider
> introducing commands like
>
>   git cherry-pick --onto=<branch> <revisions>
>
> In absence of that kind of thing, you can run commands that need to
> touch the index (but not the working tree) by setting the GIT_INDEX
> environment variable to point to a temporary index file.
>
>> I'd love to have some feedback from you. Contribution are also very
>> much welcomed.
>
> Can you say more about the federation model it intends to support?
> For example, do you imagine
>
> - having multiple copies of a git bugs repo that automatically fetch
>   updates from each other
>
> - having explicit "pull request" synchronization moments when the
>   owners of one copy of a bug tracker push or request a fetch of
>   changes that have been happening on another
>
> - individual contributors using an offline copy of the bug tracker
>   and pushing push/pull mostly to synchronize with a single
>   centralized copy
>
> - something else?
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan



-- 
Michael