issue tracking reorganisation proposal

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Adriaan Moors <adriaan.moors@epfl.ch> wrote:

The thing that is harder to achieve is links between GitHub and the issue tracker  - link "SI-1234" in GitHub to the bugtracker - link commit hashes in the bugtracker to GitHub

indeed -- those are the main show stoppers as I see it

I was given to understand that we can do arbitrary rewrites of the text.  If that is the case then these are trivial matters.  If it is not the case then we still have some big unsolved problems, like fixing the $->$$ mangling.

Oh, the github->youtrack direction I don't know about.  Although that might be doable too.  But I'm mainly concerned about youtrack->github anyway.

it's doable, but having it happen in real time would be nicer -- the post-factum rewrite would somehow have to run continuously, detecting new posts (issues or comments), and rewrite themit seems like quite a strain to put on the system

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Phillips <paulp@improving.org> wrote:

Oh, the github->youtrack direction I don't know about.  Although that might be doable too.  But I'm mainly concerned about youtrack->github anyway.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Adriaan Moors <adriaan.moors@epfl.ch> wrote:

it's doable, but having it happen in real time would be nicer -- the post-factum rewrite would somehow have to run continuously, detecting new posts (issues or comments), and rewrite themit seems like quite a strain to put on the system

Clearly you are not accustomed to truly straining systems (other than my nervous system with your commits.)  There has to be, I hope, a hook for notification after a database change; failing that we can rewrite all changes since time X every Y minutes; there is definitely a hook for doing something when a commit hits github.  Given the size of the issues we are presently dealing with, this is a long way from my biggest worry.

of course we won't bring the server down (I'll probably clog your nervous system first)i was more worried about inconsistencies that might arise (say you add a comment, the script rewrites it, you edit the comment, the script's rewrite hits the system, your edit is gone), or about the availability of such notifications for all aspects of database changes 
clearly, we can do it for github -> youtrack using service hooks, and I agree that will already be a huge improvement
so i'll stop clogging the internets with my needless worrying now

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Paul Phillips <paulp@improving.org> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Adriaan Moors <adriaan.moors@epfl.ch> wrote:

it's doable, but having it happen in real time would be nicer -- the post-factum rewrite would somehow have to run continuously, detecting new posts (issues or comments), and rewrite themit seems like quite a strain to put on the system

Clearly you are not accustomed to truly straining systems (other than my nervous system with your commits.)  There has to be, I hope, a hook for notification after a database change; failing that we can rewrite all changes since time X every Y minutes; there is definitely a hook for doing something when a commit hits github.  Given the size of the issues we are presently dealing with, this is a long way from my biggest worry.