Re: [sup-talk] Choosing a bug tracker for Sup

From: Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com>
To: Kevin Riggle <kevinr@free-dissociation.com>
Cc: sup-talk <sup-talk@rubyforge.org>
Subject: Re: [sup-talk] Choosing a bug tracker for Sup
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:30:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1257150469-sup-7051@peray> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1257124377-sup-199@black-opal.mit.edu>

Excerpts from Kevin Riggle's message of Mon Nov 02 02:17:31 +0100 2009:
> Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Sun Nov 01 16:52:08 -0500 2009:
> (snip)
> (snip)
> > 
> > I would store and manage the first category using a simple YAML file.
> > 
> > The bot acknowledges its updates by simply answering to the discussion.
> > 
> > Those of the second category can be managed using a single email discussion.
> > 
> > Since the discussion is central to the issue, tracking the original message-ID
> > could be used as the unique identifier.
> > 
> > About the issues identifier I see two options, either we try to allocate
> > simple integers like most of the trackers or we just keep the unique (long)
> > identifier.
> > 
> > Then, optionally a simple set of HTML pages can be generated using the YAML
> > file.
> > 
> > About storage of the YAML file I would simply store it in the repository.
> > If we make the bot accessible, we just have to periodically pull
> > from it.
> > 
> This portion of your proposed system sounds to me a lot like SD 
> (http://syncwith.us), against which writing your proposed bot would be fairly
> straightforward.

SD looks indeed really fun, however I think it fails my simplicity goal.
Indeed the tool expose tons of commands and try to abstract how it is made,
I'm in favor of better knowing the underlying store (a YAML file), and simply
storing it with usual DVCS tools.

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr
_______________________________________________
sup-talk mailing list
sup-talk@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk