From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Chacon Subject: Re: Why Is There No Bug Tracker And Why Are Patches Sent Instead Of Pull Requests Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:52:53 -0800 Message-ID: References: <7vhay9tqs6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120229225304.GA9099@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andrew Ardill , Jonathan Nieder , Junio C Hamano , opticyclic , git@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Troxel X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 01 17:54:56 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S39HH-0003oU-DG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:54:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758180Ab2CAQyg convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:54:36 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:54030 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757057Ab2CAQxN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:53:13 -0500 Received: by mail-pz0-f46.google.com with SMTP id r28so936513daj.19 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of schacon@gmail.com designates 10.68.194.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.194.65; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of schacon@gmail.com designates 10.68.194.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=schacon@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=schacon@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.194.65]) by 10.68.194.65 with SMTP id hu1mr4895558pbc.75.1330620793260 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:53:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H73WVTb+XzN4bJ048ICRYuxrdVGDFVsEBHrIy/Ob+8k=; b=H5XDVIQBJzky3RlqeqB30ShebOXNLfB2BUUoWkIKHD3IjH6DbfqCtE/uaDyHsUJj5U 1uY+qdWBN20lnY4ugJfMwe5oq3vPUnlW4rW+rWQnYMMNJs10eEB8lRsXGjnlv0u2TE+7 r12RLxY/R+RNQai6IFWavF2ZaLmo069kj1U8Y= Received: by 10.68.194.65 with SMTP id hu1mr4107651pbc.75.1330620793180; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.5.72 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:52:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > =C2=A0I have set up a JIRA instance using Atlassian's OnDemand servic= e, > =C2=A0available at https://git-scm.atlassian.net/ > Honestly I would argue against this, just because unless you want to spend a lot of time on it, I don't think it's going to get used much. Issue trackers in general tend not to get traction unless the maintainer uses it and asks people to use it or it's included in the workflow somehow. I use issue trackers in most of my projects, but I also don't use mailing lists - a lot of the things that work for my workflows are not the way that the Git project does it and I think you'll find that it's a bit of a waste of time to try to shoehorn them in. Besides, most of the things you are looking to get out of this are generally pretty easily obtained from the ML. If you're bored and want a project to work on, ask the ML. If you want to know the status on something, search or ask the ML. It's not quite as self-service as a issue tracker, but it gets you into the community more, which I think is also important. > Do people really think it's reasonable to use non-Free tools to devel= op > git? =C2=A0That seems surprising to me. This is particularly interesting to me. Disclaimer: I work at GitHub and have for most of the life of GitHub. That said, it's interesting to think about this. What does the freedom of the tooling provide you? Data portability is one thing, but both JIRA and GitHub have APIs to obtain basically any data in them (I think - I never use JIRA, but I've worked on the GH APIs). I do think that an interesting data point here is the cast of kernel.org, though. So that's all free, but also hugely and totally failed everyone here. It wasted hours of my time trying to clean up all the broken links from git-scm.com over a month, which is after a month of thinking that they couldn't possibly be down another day. The wiki is still busted. The docs are still gone. GitHub has contracted a designer and has started spending developer hours working on a better git-scm.com to take over those functions so it won't happen again. More importantly, that will never happen to GitHub or JIRA - there is no conceivable way that either of these relatively large corporations would tolerate even a full day of downtime or data loss. So free is great, but what is more important in the tooling and services that help you develop? Is it freedom to some arbitrary level, or is it simplicity and availability? I value my time a lot more than if I can get the source code to the issue tracker that my open source project uses. If we're going to use an issue tracker, or any other tool, I would really rather prefer we use one backed by a company that takes downtime seriously as opposed to using something that doesn't have the resources to fix things in any timeframe. Having someone saying "it's going to keep working because if it doesn't we all lose our jobs" is more freedom to me than having people say "if it doesn't work at some point you have the freedom to spend days of your time reimplementing it on your own hardware with maybe some of our backed up data and our open source code". Which is literally what I'm doing today for the hosted man page documentation. Just some thoughts. Scott